Capt. Joseph H. Forrington
(Call me "Cass")
Independent For President 2016

Cum Laude Graduate
The United States
Merchant Marine Academy







Sorry, but I am no longer running for president. I was never really "running", just "walking".
I am leaving this site up as it just contains my views on some serious issues. But there are a lot of very qualified people running this time. and I know I never stood a chance, anyway. I never did like running since I ran track in High School.

I urge you to vote Republican in '16 so we finally have three branches of government working together so something finally gets done in Washington.

If you have visited this site before, please revisit it as some of my opinions and positions have evolved and changed since the last election.

Even if you believe an individual like me can not be elected, please read my opinions and positions as outlined below so they can become part of the mainstream dialog.

I am a Compassionate Independent Republican. I encompass a combination of Libertarian, Republican and Progressive beliefs. Though I do not agree with every plank in the current Republican platform, I want to be the Republican candidate in your state because I do not want to be a spoiler who takes votes from the Republican party.

I believe you will find compassionate, responsible, answers to our problems, including our national debt, in the solutions and changes I outline below.

If I am not elected, then I want a Republican president and congress to be voted in to fix what can be fixed. I urge you to make me the Republican candidate in your state. I firmly believe the Democrats are not helping, but hurting the poor and disadvantaged, and that there is a more compassionate, reasonable way to truely help them and the country as a whole.

I support the rights of ALL Americans to live in a free and equal society.

Not on the Right enough for the Republicans?
Not on the Left enough for the Democrats?

THIS is the
Rational Center

Please post this site, or the links to individual sections you agree with, on your social media sites to make what I suggest part of the political debate.


Please Visit My Blog At The Captain's Rag For My Comments Elaborating On The Following Positions And Current Events.

BASIC POSITIONS

#1 About Me
#2 Free Enterprise
#3 Personal Freedom and Crime
#4 Unconditional Divorce
#5 "Gay" Marriage
#6 Public Health
#7 Universal Health Care
And The Public Option

#8 Global Warming
#9 Foreign Policy
#10 Crime and Punishment,
The Penal System

#11 The Educational System
#12 Campaign Reform
#13 Income Tax versus Flat Tax
#14 Abortion
#15 The Homeless
#16 Veterans' Issues
#17 Immigration Reform
#18 Social Security & Medicare
#19 The Welfare System
#20 Church and State
#21 Iraq and Afghanistan
#22 Guantanamo and POW's
#23 Oil and Gas Crisis
#24 The Global Economy,
NAFTA and Free Trade

#25 Foreign Aid
#26 Gun Control
#27 The Deficits, Balanced Budget & Keynesian Econonomics
#28 Iran



                                                 ABOUT ME

            I am 64 years-old. If you elect me, I will be 66 when I take office.

      You will notice there is no picture of me on this site. This is because what I look like is not important compared to what I think. I will be doing a job and I would hire a one-eyed, one-armed, one-legged, hunch-backed person if he could do the job because darn few can, no matter what it is. If this campaign should take on momentum, you will get to see me sooner or later anyway. I am told I am an "impressive" man with a "presence" about him. I am a "people person" and am thought of as an extrovert even though I feel I am an introvert. I am shy and sensitive, but know how to humanely exert authority.

      As for my background, I am a Cum Laude graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, Class of 1972. Bobby Kennedy nominated me for appointment. Most Americans, sadly, do not even know how many Federal military academies we have, but mine is one of five: West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy), New London (Coast Guard), Colorado Springs (Air Force), and Kings Point (Merchant Marine with Navy commissions). Kings Point has graduated three of our astronauts, Cdr. Mark Kelly of NASA probably being the best known. Just to give you a reference, I was in Kings Point while Wesley Clark was in West Point. Both Federal academies, I was Merchant Marine while he was Army. Also, for sports fans, Skip Prosser, the Wake Forest basketball coach who passed away suddenly a few years ago, was in my academic section in Kings Point.

      Unlike General Clark, I have had a lot of "broad experience" in the world. I spent 27 years at sea, the last 14 as Master, Captain for the landlubbers. I am not going to list my sins here, they are too many, but if this kicks off and my opposition says, "He did that", they are probably telling the truth. So if you want someone who has been a saint for president, well, just forget it, you won't get it no matter who you vote for. If you want someone who knows about life and why some things are definitely right and wrong, I am your guy. If you want a current judge of my character and what I live by and believe; my spiritual beliefs; please visit my Symbol of Unity site. I began that way before this endeavor.

      I am union man, a member of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, AFL-CIO, and still pay dues though I am retired. I believe very firmly in the necessity for unions in the private sector, but am just as firmly against unions in the public sector because politicians have very little incentive to refuse the demands of the public sector unions, which has led to financial catastrophe in communities at all levels nationwide, and too many political reasons to give these union members everything they demand. Public sector jobs should be offered and be paid at a rate determined by the governments of the communities they serve and no more.

      I am a humane man. I have had up to three homeless people in my house at one time, trying to help them out. I helped a disabled woman for several years, trying to help her overcome her paranoia and drug addiction. She was dying from Hepatitis C and multiple intestinal problems when I met her. She had a miracle with her intestinal problems six weeks later, and her liver function returned to normal, but, sadly, the paranoia finally drove her to suicide several months after she left my town. One of the homeless I helped, who had head trauma from a boating accident, moved on and now has her own house. Another finally died from alcoholism a few days after we parted company. I have lost track of the third, but the last time I saw him he was drunk and panhandling again. I had to ask him to leave my home because he stole some wine from my bedroom closet.

      Because of my exposure to the homeless and the mentally ill, I know just how poor our Public Health and Mental Health systems are. The two people I saw die, would not have if we had properly taken care of them. This is a major pet peeve of mine and you can be sure I will fix it when I provide universal healthcare, as I discuss below.

      I also traveled all over this world for 27 years, visiting over 50 countries on every continent but Antarctica. I have been 600 miles from the North Pole and I have even visited with the Amazon natives, just about as far up the Amazon river as a person can go; so far I had to walk through the jungle to get a Peruvian visa from a man in the middle of the jungle in a cement room that was the size of a tollbooth. I have seen the poor eat wet, maggot infested, garbage and I have seen the excesses of the rich. I have studied all the major faiths and a lot of minor ones and understand the concerns of our planetary neighbors. I also understand how they think. This is extremely valuable experience for a president.

      Since my retirement I have established a business that is now the 7th most popular attraction in my town according to Trip Advisor. I began that business with $15.00, a toothpick, some glue and a ball of twine. You can check out the main site at Glass Beach Jewelry

      Americans are disgusted and frustrated and want "change", the keyword of the last and current campaigns. This site, my presidency, offers real change in a dramatic way. The other candidates are all parroting the "change" word, but we all know they can change nothing because they are part of the establishment and of the broken system. They all say Washington, and "The System", are broken, but when they get to Washington, they will just be part of the broken system and will be able to change, or "fix", nothing; absolutely nothing will change and we all know it. Obama has "fixed" nothing.

      I would like my campaign, itself, to be an example for the new America. I am accepting no campaign money to begin with and am running a strictly Internet campaign. I would like to run the entire campaign without having to raise a single dime of campaign money. No more buying political office. We can make this the most important election in history to date if you join with me and spread this revolution via the Internet. Let's show the money people they can no longer buy political office.

      This is electronic grass roots action at its best. I believe, in this day and age, that I can spend "Zero" dollars and become president of the United States without buying the job if we, the people, really do want change. If you are tired of sound bites and tailored answers, I am your man. It'll be tough, but I am the man to really change the way things are now. If you want American prosperity to move forward, and not decline, I am the man. The other folks are part of the established political system, no matter what their denials, and are already working the special interest groups behind the cameras. None of them will "change" anything. After reading this, you will see how I will and can change things, and do it using modern technology so I am in touch with all the people who care to contribute their ideas.

      We face crises in the environment, health care, social security, the economy, the family, foreign relations, and what else? You name it.

      Iraq and Afghanistan were tremendous mistakes that played right into the hands of Al-Qaeda. They are breaking our treasury, economy, and military, which is just what the conservative and radical Muslims did to the Soviet Union, which no longer exists, in Afghanistan.

      The price of oil and gas is finally dropping as the oil and natural gas boom grows in the United States. So why are we still subsidizing the oil companies? They say they need the money to carry them through "the hard times", but who can remember the oil companies ever having hard times? We are burning our food crops, primarily corn, to make fuel while we are trying to claw our way out of a deep recession and people are having a hard time putting food on the table.

      American jobs continue to be exported overseas at an alarming rate and our industrial base continues to rot away.

      Our infrastructure of roads, railways and bridges are collapsing due to lack of funds and our airlines are nearly all bankrupt, with reliable service a thing of the past. While other nations are investing in modern, efficient, public transportation that people actually want to use, our's is rotting away. It is these very infrastructures that allow us to prosper.

      America is in a deep decline that will finally become catastrophic when the frustrated begin their own campaigns of domestic terrorism, something that has already begun, which is why we have metal detectors in our courts and government buildings.

      We have 1 in 100 of our citizens in jail and prison at a tremendous cost, much more than any other country in the world, including China and Russia. We are no longer the land of the free.

      We have watched this decline begin and deepen since the 1960's and only drastic action can save this nation.

      We talk a lot about the "separation of church and state." But what we are really doing is replacing "the church" with the state. Homosexuality, for example, is a religious issue. Yet, where I live, homosexuals are paraded into Middle School to teach the children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This is state imposed religion and morality. Likewise, the government allows anyone to divorce for any reason regardless of the sacred contracts the parties entered into in their religion when they got married. The state does not consider marriage sacred anymore even though all the faiths that make up the population do. This is now the state religion being forced on all of us. The state should only be involved in the disposition of wealth after a couple has a truly legal divorce within their particular faith. Things have gotten totally out of control regarding our government and what it is supposed to do because too many vocal special interest groups are pandered to by the politicians. The very system is broken.

      Please read on for some very real solutions.

FREE ENTERPRISE

      #2: I will restore free enterprise so our homeless and poor have a way to fulfill the American dream. I have been both homeless and poor (Yup, I've had a very full life.) and know what obstacles our government puts in the way of the poor. During the Great Depression, laws were passed to limit competition to help protect those individuals who still had stores. In many parts of the country these laws are still in effect, making it very difficult, or impossible, for the little guy to start his own business. We are swamped in a sea of unnecessary regulations that grows every single day. We are smothering the very thing that made this country great: Free Enterprise. I strongly believe in a "free" marketplace. What if you could put computers together at home and then sell them in a "free" marketplace? What if you could do ANY art or craft at home and then sell them in a "free" marketplace?

      Day after day Americans see markets, free markets, being blown up in Iraq but they don't ask where their own free marketplace has gone.

      Some of us might even get productive at home again, instead of sitting in front of the tube, if we knew there was a marketplace we could go to to sell the fruits of our labors. Some couples might not get divorced, and people might eat, drink and smoke less if they have something productive to do. I do.

      It used to be that an immigrant could get off the boat with a nickel in his pocket, go into a store and buy an apple, sell it on the street for a dime, go back to the store and buy two apples, etc., until he had enough money to buy a bed and meal for the night. When President Reagan proposed "free enterprise" zones in the United States, it highlighted just how un-free we have become.

      Every city, town and municipality should be required to have a free marketplace where any citizen can come and sell what he has to offer. Food vendors would still have to comply with public health regulations. If the municipality does not offer a free marketplace, then it must allow free street vending so the poor can provide for themselves.

      Anyone below the poverty level should be permitted to do whatever they can to rise above that level without the imposition of permits and the requirement to collect and pay taxes. Every dollar generated that way expands ten times in the economy and is the very basis of the free marketplace. I have been all over this world and in most places people are poor. The poorest of the poor provide for themselves by buying a bag of candy or something and selling it a piece a time on the street. To take this opportunity from someone and force them to "fly a sign" and beg instead is completely inhumane. What else has a person but the fruits of his labor, no matter how humble?

      We have far too many "permits" sucking the capital out of our capitalistic economy. Recently, for instance, the man who owns the property that houses my store and museum wanted to fix a pothole in his driveway. The thing was that it is in the portion of his driveway that lies within the state right-of-way for state Highway 1. He hoped the state would just do it because it lay in the state right-of-way. Instead, they told him he had to pay $600 for a permit so he could fill the pothole himself. That's $650 dollars to fix a $50 pothole.

      Any fool should be able to see that this is just money being sucked out of the economy for no good reason. It also stops people from improving, or "increasing the value" of their property. Tort reform, by the way, would go to greatly helping this type of problem in the economy. Fear of lawsuits, and ridiculous insurance requirements and fees, create a very large share of these kind of economic problems. If we limited damages through tort reform, and made people more responsible for themselves, like when riding a roller-coaster, all that money could be put back into the material economy instead of putting it in the "virtual" economy of people who actually produce no tangible products.

      Special interests, including the ecology movement, have placed severe restrictions on individual industry that are bad for the society and economy. All of these restrictions and regulations need to be reviewed and relaxed wherever possible and this overflows into other areas, especially personal freedom.

PERSONAL FREEDOM AND CRIME

      #3: I believe the government has the right to require seat belts in cars, and can require ads advocating their use, but it does not have the right to ticket people who do not wear them, or even have their children wear them. These are personal decisions free people should make. This applies to motorcycle helmet laws, life preserver laws and all other laws that put a policeman looking over everyone's shoulder. We are our brother's keeper, but he has every right to live as stupidly as he wants to. That is freedom. The government is not our parent and it should not interfere in these personal decisions. It is simply NOT a governmental function. Because we are all just human, if we continue to outlaw all these things, we will eventually all be outlaws. If the deaths and injuries from these things were at a high enough level, like the STD epidemics, I would say they are true public health issues and would support them. But in my opinion they do not constitute a "public" health crisis that requires governmental action, but rather an "individual" health crisis best left to the decisions of the individual.

      The Supreme Court has sold out the Constitution in many ways. They have been chipping and chipping away at the rock the founding fathers built this country on. The right for the police to stop anyone, at any time, and to set up roadblocks to check for drunk drivers is the prime example. Even the Supreme Court cannot over-ride the Constitution. If people want things like this to be legal, they must get a Constitutional amendment passed. The biggest area of this country is rural and the .08 law and the police ability to violate our constitutional rights has had devastating social effects in the rural areas, including higher divorce and suicide rates. In my county, the law has not dropped DUI deaths. They have gone up because people now drive for miles on country roads to and from houses instead of frequenting restaurants and bars in the towns, which are more or less shut down by 10PM. There are no real New Year's celebrations here anymore. Nor Fourth of July, etc. We no longer feel free.

      I will restore our rights in rural areas in the name of freedom, while leaving large municipalities with several means of 24 hour public transportation the right to maintain the .08 law. Most of the people who would want such a law are the same people who don't want to go to socialize in taverns like our founding fathers did. They just think the deaths are bad, which they are. If the .08 law had greatly reduced or eliminated DUI deaths in my county, I'd be for it. Unfortunately it has no effect at all except to make it nearly impossible for people to lead normal lives socially.

      A few years ago our District Attorney said he was going to start asking for mandatory one year sentences for all first offender DUI's because the death rate was up, not down, and "people weren't getting it." It was he who was not getting it. The law doesn't work and just causes more pain and needs to be changed. In rural areas I suggest a .15 limit for males and a .12 limit for females because they metabolize alcohol differently. I grew up in New York, which was then a .15 state. As a Master of ships, I am well acquainted with the different levels of intoxication and what most people can do at those different levels. Not everyone has the same tolerance levels. Indeed I had one crewmember that drank two bottles of vodka a day and none of us, for years, even knew that he drank. That came out in a court deposition years later.

      Designated drivers are also a joke in rural America. With over half the population divorced, my next issue, people live lonely lives and it is not possible to find a designated driver, especially in rural America where people live tens of miles apart.

      On top of it all, the .08 limit was unconstituitonally forced on the states by Clinton when he included it as a requirement in the Federal Highway funds bill. The Federal government has no right, constitutionally, to demand the states have a .08 law to receive their share of the highway funds. Like most extreme liberals, the Clintons have little regard for the Constitution when it interferes with their own concept of what is "good" for people. I call these people "Liberal Nazi's" or "Safety Nazi's" and I'm fed up with them placing more and more burdens on the people, and the courts and penal system, because they are so afraid of everything. If they are so afraid, let them stay home. Of course liberal elitists like the Clintons who get driven around by chauffeurs so they can drink what they want aren't affected by the .08 law unless someone over that limit drives into their chauffeur-driven car. Breathalyse them after one of their fundraisers and you will find they are above the .08 limit. They are living loose and easy while everone else is stuck at home. These people understand nothing about the common man or what it is like to not have priviledge and money. I guarantee you that if Clinton had to drive himself to the bar so he could have a drink and screw around on Hillary there would be no .08 law. Where does that morally corrupt bugger or his wife get off telling us how to live our lives?

      Also, "public intoxication" is now also set at .08 where I live, so even if you are walking, you end up in jail if you dare to "celebrate" anything. Making the walking limit the same as the driving limit is simply outrageous. In the movie "The Alamo", with John Wayne, Travis, the commander of the Alamo, asks Wayne why he is there. Wayne replies, "I just like the sound of the word 'Republic'. It means a man can get as drunk as he wants and walk home with no one bothering him." Where, I ask, is my Republic and my freedom?

      We cannot reduce everything to the lowest common denominator in the name of public safety. Some things do reach societal proportions that need to be addressed by the government, like the STD epidemics, but we have far too many personal safety laws that have been passed on the basis of too few injuries and deaths. Just because one child hits her head on her garage door because she doesn't know how to use the brakes on her new bike, and dies because she wasn't wearing a helmet, is no reason to have seasoned marines wear bike helmets while they are peddling around a military base with no cars, such as Diego Garcia. Neither is it reason to step in and make all children wear helmets. If 20,000 children were dying every year for lack of a bike helmet, it would be a "public" safety issue. A few children, though sad, does not make it a public safety issue. That is the price of freedom. You can bet a lot of money went to politicians who listened to the helmet manufacturers. The same can be said of the recent decision to make us all get new propane tanks for our barbecues. This is why I will do away with lobby money. We can't stop the people, in any form, from talking to their representatives, but we can stop the monetary influence.

UNCONDITIONAL DIVORCE

      #4: Unconditional, no-fault, divorce is destroying American society and impoverishing our children. Marriage has been a sacred institution in every human culture. The reason behind its "sacredness" is because it is a difficult state to live in but is essential for the health of our children and wealth of our communities. "High thinkers" thought human goodness would prevail in a no-fault divorce state. They were wrong. People tend to put themselves first which is why we have a 50% plus divorce rate. I will see to it that no-fault divorce is a thing of the past and that the government enforces every legal, spiritual, contract entered into by people of any faith. For those of no faith, the requirements shall be the same. Divorce will only be allowed in cases of adultery, insanity, imprisonment, child abuse, severe brutality, or the failure to produce children within 10 years. (Just as many wives physically abuse their husbands as husbands, wives. Women use weapons, while men don't. I am including this here because most people believe the popular feminist myth that men are brutes who beat their wives. What I am telling you is true, and was a front-page article in one of the major San Francisco papers, I can't remember at the moment if it was the Chronicle or the Examiner.)

      In the same vein, I would deny government assistance, welfare, to unmarried mothers unless they are single due to widowhood or a legal divorce issued under the new criteria. Seventy percent of African American households, nearly fifty percent of Hispanic households, and twenty-six percent of other households have no father and the percentage is rapidly rising amongst other ethnic groups. Babies have become equal to a paycheck and this is morally corrupt. There is no moral reason individuals who wait to have children until they can afford them, and enter the institution of marriage, should have to pay for the children and welfare of unwed mothers.

      Society needs to ensure that men who marry themselves together with a woman in the person of a new child are held responsible for the care of that child. They are married just as much as the people who take vows and we now have the ability to identify fathers positively and hold them to account.

      Single mothers will only be eligible for assistance if they identify the fathers of their children. Paternity can then be proven through a paternity test and the fathers forced to provide what they can. Both parents will have to be living in the same home, and still not be able to get by, before they recieve assistance.

      I would grandfather in such mothers already on welfare until the paternity issues can be resolved, but the policy would begin 12 months after this law is passed for all new single mothers. It is time to demand responsibility from all our citizens,

"GAY" MARRIAGE

      #5: First, let me say that the word "gay" hardly describes homosexuals of either sex. Homosexuals tend to be very unhappy people. I have known a lot of homosexuals in my lifetime, some of whom were, and are, very good friends. I shared an apartment briefly with a very good friend, now dead, from my high school years after I graduated the academy, and am still good friends with a fellow I roomed with for two years at the academy who took up a homosexual lifestyle after graduation. Not a single one of them was "gay" by any stretch of the imagination. Besides STD's, homosexuals also have a higher rate of psychological problems. I pity their dilemma. The term "Gay" actually means "promiscuous" and is why the homosexual population has such a high incidence of STD's, putting a big burden on the health care system either through tax cost or higher insurance rates.

      My adoptive brother is homosexual and, sadly, he won't even speak to me anymore even though I told him I considered him my brother and loved him despite his lifestyle choice, but this is not the place to discuss that. I know there are other legitimate gene mixes that produce males driven to males and females driven to females. I am not condoning hatred of the homosexuals for how they were born. I am saying that they need to be in monogamous relationships, as do heterosexuals.

      This is how we limit disease.

      But the people who actually "marry themselves together in flesh, blood and spirit", in the person of a child, should be granted special recognition for the good of society. Of course this would include adoptive parents who have a marriage contract.

      Marriage is a state of self-sacrifice entered into for the sake of the children and the health of the community in general. The marriage is literally "in the children" when two people marry themselves together in flesh and blood in the form of a new person. For this reason it is currently ludicrous to suggest two homosexuals who cannot marry themselves together in a child can get "married".

      However, in the near future homosexuals will be able to produce "test tube" babies by marrying their genetic material together. At that time not only should homosexual marriage be allowed, it should be required for the sake of the children of such unions, just as it should be required for heterosexual couples. I do not approve of so-called "single moms" and believe a child needs both a mother and father. The "Octomom" who now has fourteen children by artificial insemination and no means of supporting them points out dramatically how dangerous a path this is. Just how many so-called "single moms" on welfare are now burdening the rest of us? And just how many socially dysfunctional children are they contributing to society? Fifty percent of the non-food stamp welfare budget goes to so-called "single mothers". This is outrageous.

      In the meantime, I support "civil unions" for homosexual couples who are committed to each other for two reasons. The first is to reduce homosexual promiscuity which spreads so many deadly diseases (HIV/AIDS, Hep C, Syphilis). The second is that such couples should be entitled to the legal benefits that married people get when they are so committed to each other that they give up the promiscuous lifestyle and become financially dependent upon, and committed to, each other. "Life partners" should enjoy the same legal rights even though the terminolgy should be different for homosexual couples, to maintain the respect people get who are committed to each other for their children's' sakes.

      There is no doubt in my mind that there are people who are homosexual because of their genetics. They have always been with us and the only solution I can see is to either slay them all, like the Saudi's do, or actually require them to enter monogamous relationships in a civil union. Promiscuity is not a viable social lifestyle to me for either heterosexuals or homosexuals because it spreads so much disease and burdens the healthcare system so much, and I certainly can't see slaying all the promiscuous people, many of whom are my friends, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

      It is an unfortunate reality that the children of homosexuals will always face ridicule from children from heterosexual families. That is just human nature and as we all know children can be cruel. Look at the recent "bullying suicides". It is also sad that such children will not have the benefits of having a mom and dad. For these reasons I oppose placing children in homosexual homes either through adoption or in foster care. But when homosexuals have the ability to marry themselves together genetically, I can see no way to deny them that right in a free society.

I can also see no way to stop lesbian couples from having their own children through artifical insemination, or through other means of impregnation, and their parantel rights need to be acknowledged and respected when the children are their own.

PUBLIC HEALTH

      #6: We have full blown epidemics of every sexually transmitted disease. These epidemics are a primary reason we cannot provide normal health care to all. To correct this, I would outlaw fornication again. Until the drug-driven (including birth-control) revolution of the 1960's, fornication was against the law. This was a public health law that tried to prevent the spread of deadly STD's. In the 1960's, before the advent of AIDS and Hepatitis C, people thought they had deadly STD's beat through antibiotics, and unwanted pregnancies through birth control. I did. The advent of AIDS and Hepatitis C proved this to be wrong. We have given "safe sex" long enough to work and it doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't have full blown epidemics of all these diseases. It is as simple as that. People are too careless when their hormones take over, especially if drugs or alcohol are involved.

      As anyone can tell from simply looking at old movies, fornication has been going on forever and such a law is hardly enforceable. However, if we teach our young that fornication is against the law for public health reasons, we will find the promiscuity rate dropping dramatically over the years and also the rate of STD transmission, especially if we put stronger restrictions on the entertainment industry so they can not glamorize the promiscuous lifestyle to seduce the young. As one of my daughters pointed out to me, anti-marijuana laws do not stop people from smoking marijuana. Nor do DUI laws stop people from drinking and driving. Anti-fornication laws cannot stop fornication, but they can reduce promiscuity and the spread of disease. Such a law does more to set a "societal ideal" than anything else, but such laws are necessary when the country is facing such a healthcare crisis as regards sexually transmitted diseases. Augustus Caesar, a pagan, banned kissing for 11 years simply because of an epidemic of herpes on people's lips. What would he have done to rid his nation of AIDS?

      Some people who can practice self-control still see safe sex as the answer and will not like this law. But they are forgetting about the 50% or more of the population who do not have that self-control. If it were only a few people who didn't practice safe sex and we only had a few cases of AIDS or Hep C, that would be one thing. But the clear fact is that too many people don't and we have full blown epidemics that need to be brought under control because they are now breaking the bank. And, quite frankly, I resent paying all these medical bills for people who have led what I consider to be irresponsible lives. I don't mess around and I don't see why they "have" to. They live irresponsibly, far worse than someone having a drink and driving, and I have to pay for their healthcare. That is just not right. So, the alternative solution would be to tell people that if they get an STD through promiscuity, they must pay all their own medical bills or just die. Of course that is not right, either. I believe it is quite clear that the party is over and it is time to start requiring responsible behavior from everyone sexually. The way to start doing this is to reinstate the moral law so the children being born today are raised in a different social atmosphere. What did Jesus say, "Render unto me the little children?" He knew change took time and a change in education of the newborn.

      Also, most people are not promiscuous. They might like to be, but really, what's the chance? Promiscuity tends to be something the young and the homosexual indulge in more than anyone else. Just look around you. How many folks are you attracted to? Not many, huh? The trouble is that enough people are so that the healthcare system is near collapse and can't provide normal care for everyone.

      I would impose much stricter moral codes on an entertainment industry that will pander to any filthy desire for the sake of income. I firmly believe that if we were still exporting "Leave It To Beaver" instead of "Sex In The City" we wouldn't be having our current problems with the Muslim world. The moral code in entertainment should reflect society's highest goals and family values, not its basest desires.

      Because homosexual people will soon be able to procreate through scientific methods, I would allow homosexual marriages when they can do this, but the homosexual community, notorious for its promiscuity, would also be forbidden to engage in fornication outside of marriage or civil union.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

      #7: President Obama's health care reform is an unmitigated disaster doomed to fail. I also strongly believe it is unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, for any level of government to mandate individuals purchase an item from the private sector.

      There is a better way to provide universal care. Certain consumer protections embodied by the law should be kept under a new system, like not allowing people to be dropped due to illness, carrying children on their parent's plans until age 26 and ending yearly and lifetime benefit limits.

      Pre-existing conditions are a different matter. Insurance companies are people paying into a pool of money to ensure they are covered when illness strikes. To allow someone who does not have insurance to simply buy into such a pool when disaster strikes is not fair to those who are already members. Why should a person who never paid for insurance, and who then gets cancer, AIDS, Hep B or C, or diabetes, etc., be allowed to make a single payment and then get the same coverage others have been paying for for years? Insurance companies, though private, are really just big co-ops people pay into and fund through the years so they can use it when they need it. To make those people pay for the costs of someone who has never paid a dime is just immoral. I would support a ban on denying insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions only when they reach the age of 26 and are moving off of their parent's plans into the general marketplace. Others with pre-existing conditions would be provided care by the Public Health Service as outlined below.

      The first thing we need to do is end the health care monopolies. Competition across state lines would help a lot to lower medical insurance costs. It would take several years for the insurance companies to offer their services in new markets, but as they did, costs would drop significantly.

      We also desperately need tort reform. The trial lawyers keep blocking tort reform because they don't want to lose their share of the huge settlements the courts award. This is a primary reason insurance is so high for medical providers, causing them to practice "defensive medicine", and it is the cost of that insurance, and the extra tests and treatments ordered to cover themselves, that drives our costs up so much. Simply passing tort reform and ending the monopolies would make medical care much more affordable for everyone.

      Tort reform should include an end to frivolous lawsuits. This would be accomplished by a panel of physicians who would determine if a case has enough merit to be brought to trial. These panels should operate on a local/state level and the members could be either appointed or elected.

      All our medical records should be computerized so each doctor knows exactly what other doctors are treating an individual, what tests have already been performed and what medicines prescribed. I believe this is crucial to the survival of Medicare and for the best treatment of patients.

      As this is placing a heavy burden on physicians, it should be gradually phased in. New patients should be immediately entered into the computerized system and the physicians should have a ten year time period to get everyone else entered into the system.

      Universal health care is certainly possible if we get the special interest groups out of the way. We used to have universal health care in the Public Health Service, something Reagan abolished. Public Health Service hospitals used to be all around the country providing free, or inexpensive, health care to the poor. I would simply re-instate this system with some changes. This would be the "Public Option".

      Those opting to use the Public Health Service should be offered government run Health Insurance that would only be good within the Public Health Service. Those without this insurance would be on a pay-as-you-go-and-can basis.

      Where hospitals already exist, the Public Health Service will share those hospitals. If additional beds are needed, they can be added on much more cheaply than building new hospitals. If equipment resources are overwhelmed, additional equipment can be purchased. The Public Health Service should have a separate entry and processing area, but where possible, the same emergency room should be shared. The uninsured who would often use the emergency rooms at great expense, would now be treated by Public Health Service personnel at the greatly reduced cost.

      The government would reimburse the private hospitals for their share of equipment depreciation and replacement.

      Individuals using the Public Health Service would be required to pay what they could afford without selling their home, car, etc., except that no one should be allowed to keep a home and lifestyle above the medium middle class level, a boat, second home or other luxury items. Those who could afford nothing would pay nothing, but would have to provide copies of their tax returns for 10 years following a procedure so that, if their financial situation improves enough, they can pay something for the care they received. No one would be denied the very best medical treatment available, regardless of age, etc.

      This "Pay For Service" aspect is important or people will abuse the system and come in for every little headache. If they come in with a headache and only need an aspirin, they should pay for the aspirin and whatever they can for the services.

      The Public Health Service would be a "Use At Your Own Risk" service. Lawsuits for malpractice, botched procedures, etc., would be forbidden, but the public safety net, Welfare, would provide for these individuals and their families so they could continue to live at a comfortable level should they be disabled.

      People who are now uninsured and using the emergency room also increase the hospital's risk and insurance costs. By moving these individuals into a "No Sue" Public Health Service, we lower the hospital's risk and insurance cost, lowering fees to us again.

      In rural areas with no hospitals, the Public Health Service would share facilities with existing clinics or clinics could be established.

      Because doctors are high-income, privileged members of society, I would require all new doctors to serve in the Public Health Service for a period of two years after they finished their internships. These doctors would be salaried at lower middle class level during their service and at an appropriately higher rate if they decide to stay within the system when their mandatory service is done. This service could be as small town doctors, where they might develop a permanent patient base for their private practice, or in the big city hospitals. I would consult medical professionals to work this out and set it up.

      I would work with the pharmaceutical companies to lower American prescription drug costs, which we all know are much higher than in other countries. I understand these companies have to have money for research and that Americans used to have the deepest pockets. But we are making the sick pay for a very public benefit and that is not fair. Therefore I suggest the Federal government pay for some of this research through grants to the companies and that federally funded research be monitored and audited by the Centers for Disease Control to ensure the funds are spent as intended. Although I don't like big government programs, I think this would lower costs for the ill. Funding could be provided through taxes on pharmaceutical company profits on over-the-counter products and through a slight increase in Medicare taxes, or through the federal sales tax. I discuss dumping the IRS and replacing it with a federal sales tax below

GLOBAL WARMING

      #8: First let me say that the climate is always changing and that it is far better to have it warming than cooling. What we don't want is too rapid a warming or a too extreme warming.

      It doesn't matter whether you think global warming is man-made or not. The fact is that it is happening and that we can still slow and stop it through our own actions. Cutting emissions is not enough. We must more aggressively pursue our ability to control the climate. I believe this is a natural step for mankind.

      My personal belief is that the climate is warming naturally, that mankind is accelerating the process and that too quick a warming is potentially disasterous for many species, including mankind.

      The Arctic polar ice cap could completely melt in the next few years, something scientists didn't expect to happen for another 20 years. This is a major catastrophe that is going to bring very hard times worldwide over the next few years and then beyond.

      The easiest way to start cleaning CO2 out of the atmosphere is to plant trees and other vegetation. They are the most efficient CO2 scrubbers. We have lost large areas of vegetation due to the huge wildfires that have totally destroyed large ecosystems. We should be aggressively re-planting trees in those areas. We should also increase forest management to include the removal of dead underbrush in our forests. This has been sorely neglected for years based on the demands of misguided environmentalists who thought it was better to leave that tinder there. Even the Native Americans knew enough to set fires to burn this tinder out periodically so that whole ecosystems weren't destroyed when a fire began. But we have reached a point where even this burning of dead vegetation will add to the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. We need to find a way to process this dead vegeation into compact carbon sinks. Converting it into diamonds, for instance, would be the best way to store it. but compacting it in any form is better than burning it.

      Deforestation of the rain, and other, forests contributes more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. The trees that are cut down are normally burned, adding huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. On top of that, those trees are no longer scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere. This is a double whammy. The forests are carbon "sinks" that store the carbon in solid form. By cutting them down, we eliminate those sinks and the CO2 being generated by mankind is left in the atmosphere. If we preserve the forests, mankind's contributions would have a much smaller effect.

      The United Nations REDD program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) is proving to be effective in countries like Brazil and should be pushed even harder in all tropical regions. Other, more developed, nations should try to offset the tropical deforestation by planting trees wherever possible.

      Unfortunately just planting trees is not enough. In the northern hemisphere deciduous trees go through cycles of CO2 absorbtion and emission. In the growing season they absorb CO2, but in the winter they drop their leaves and emit CO2 back into the atmosphere as the leaves rot. It is also possible that trees absorb heat from the sun, instead of reflecting it back into space, increasing warming.

      Building huge solar panel arrays in new areas is also not the solution. We are talking about major ecological changes where the arrays are placed, even in deserts. We need to develop more efficient and compact ways to utilize solar power. "Solar Roadways" offer a great potential in this area. We would be replacing asphalt roadways made from oil that absorb a lot of heat with solar panels that absorb much less heat and do not intrude on existing ecosystems.

      Wind power from offshore turbines seems to be the most neutral source of non-heating power obtained directly from nature and more reserach and development is needed in this area. I am not a fan of land based wind turbines because of their negative impact on bird populations. I am also wary of undersea turbines because of their effect on ocean currents and marine life. Wave generators would be less damaging. But there is no way to build enough offshore turbines to provide anything but a small portion of our energy needs, so they are not "the solution".

      I also believe we should begin to build CO2 scrubbers and work to get the other industrialized and developing nations to do the same. As change is the only constant, we can expect a future swing in the climate that could bring on an ice age. We had a mini ice age for five hundred years from the mid 1300's until about 1880 and no one knows what actually caused that. All the carbon we salvage through scrubbers should be stored should we need to burn it later to increase CO2 levels to slow or thwart an ice age.

      During a Vice Presidential debate, Senator Biden said Global warming is solely a man-made problem. He is wrong. Mankind might be overheating a natural warming cycle. As I said above, the only constant is change. The climate never stays the same. It is always either getting warmer or getting colder. If it weren't getting warmer now, it would be getting colder and we'd be facing a possible ice age. Indeed, it could well be that mankind ended the mini ice age mentioned above and that it could have disasterously progressed into a major ice age if it were not for us.

      If mankind is affecting the warming cycle, which we most certainly are, then what we really have learned is that we can influence the climate in a major way and that is a good thing, as long as we know it. Also, if one wanted to nit-pick, man is a part of nature, so our warming influence is natural.

      Global warming is more complex than most people realize. There is no doubt in my mind that humanity is increasing the warming rate of the planet and that it is already a great catastrophe happening this year. However, this crisis will turn out to be a God-send in the end because what we have really learned is that we can control the overall climate of the planet, and can do it economically. The really big question no one has asked yet is, "What is the ideal climate for the planet?"

      The warmest period in human history was the "Holocene Maximum". It began about 9,000 years ago and lasted several thousand years. It was the end of the last Ice Age. During that period the Sahara and middle-eastern deserts were lush and green and teaming with life, and all the first, great, human civilizations emerged along the major river basins of the world from Egypt to China. Although global warming might submerge some coastal communities, the people living in what now are deserts might like some more rain, and the Norwegians and Swedes might like less snow. What I am saying here is that we now have the ability to control the world climate through greenhouse gases, but one people's idea of a perfect planetary climate might well be different from others living in different areas.

      Also, the next Ice Age actually began at the end of the Holocene Maximum. Although we are now warming the planet, it has been warmer in the past. Overall planetary temperatures have actually decreased since the Holocene Maximum. Indeed, we went through a mini-Ice Age from the mid 1300's until about 1880 that might have catastrophically deepened had it not been for the human warming influence. On top of that, even the global warming alarmists insist that if we allow the planet to keep warming the way it is, we will initiate another Ice Age, so, really, it is Ice Ages we have to worry about. What we really have to be very careful about is that we don't over-correct the climate and push ourselves into an Ice Age, which would be catastrophic, even if it only lasted a short time. Ice Ages are periods of drought and famine.

      It is also true that many of our ecological actions have been wrong, like the Forest Service putting out all fires so brush has been allowed to build up and we now have mega-fires destroying whole forests that will never come back as they were, but as whole new ecosystems. The environmental movement is also to blame for many of these problems and we need to re-evaluate all such current policies.

      I believe we need to immediately begin massive reforestation wherever forests have been destoyed. I would also begin immediate brush clearing in our remaining forests to reduce the fuel available for massive, forest killing fires. I would do all this with volunteers and as a requirement for those who are idle and on Welfare and who are fit enough to participate in such an endeavor. I'm not saying all Welfare participants would be required to do this, but some would be required to work on this project just as people did for the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression.

      I would also just encourage people to plant a tree or two. The deforestation of all the world's rain forests, both tropical and sub-tropical, like where I live, has to make a world-wide transition to selective cutting and replacement. I would work internationally to see this done.

      We can not just stop our CO2 emissions to the detriment of our economies, like Obama's war on coal, but we do need to make the transmission to non-CO2 emitting energy sources, and we need to do this as quickly as possible. There is a lot of promise from the "Solar Roadways" project mentioned above. If all our highways were converted to these solar highways, it would far exceed all our energy demands and we could readily switch to all electric vehicles. For more information on this, please visit the Solar Roadways site.

      No matter what we do, it will be a pointless effort unless we get China, India and the rest of the world to do it with us. Obama's war on coal is ludicrous because it will not matter a smidgen if other nations continue on as they are. All he is doing is damaging our economy and impoverishing Americans. He is weakening America, again, with nothing more than a cruel political act meant to placate the far left. The Democratic political machine does not care about American security and economic pre-eminence. It only cares for its own power and the perks that come with it. A vote for any Democrat is a vote to further weaken America.

      I also believe we should be aggressively pursuing the greening of our cities. Rooftops without solar panels should have greenery on them, whether it be food gardens or floral gardens. Vertical farms within our cities would also eliminate the need to truck some of our foods into the cities. Such city greenery would help absorb CO2 and help reduce the CO2 emitted by trucks carrying in food supplies.

      But it is not only our forests. Our oceans are also in grave danger. We have to reach an international understanding that humanity has reached a point where it must farm the planet with reason. The era of unlimited resources is over and we must re-stock, too. The era of planned obsolescence also needs to end until nanotechnology can provide us with unlimited resources. I refer you to Ray Kurzweil, who says we will even be using nanotechnology to make our meat within 30 years. If we make it to the age of nanotechnology, and it is as Kurzweil predicts, we are on the verge of a wonderful world. But we have to make it there. We need to start making and buying products that can be used and re-used, as much as possible. Changes like automobile frames that will accept new bodies and upgrades, or desktop computers that accept new internals. We also need to completely get away from plastics as much as possible. They are consuming our oil and creating a lot of waste.

      As plastics are made from oil, we should be recycling ALL of them, which some entrepreneurs are now doing for profit. Wherever possible, we should be replacing plastic containers with recyclable glass containers.

FOREIGN POLICY

      #9: America is not, nor should we strive to be, the world's policeman. One of the most important things we can do for another culture is to respect it. We should only undertake humanitarian military action as part of a United Nations force. Preemptive military action is sometimes justified, but only if authorized by Congress. Usually we should only attack if we have been attacked.

      I would have the American military as strong as possible and equipped with the highest technology, so I expect no changes in policy there. I think our forces have done an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances, and they should be as well funded, and cared for, as we can afford. We don't want vets killing themselves or ending up disabled and on the street. I talk about veteran's issues below. These are our sons and daughters. In fact, I would like to restore the old savings into the commissary system, so they get a good deal everytime they buy something.

      A strong military is essential to our security and the Military Industrial Complex is an important part of our economy. We need to maintain both a strong military and the industrial complex that supports it. But we should not feel we have to be involved in endless wars to justify this. There are ways to maintain the military and its industrial complex, and all the jobs it provides, through other means like training exercises and through having the military assist in other areas like border enforcement.

      Indeed, we are now lacking in several industrial areas that weaken our national security. We should ensure we have a strong American steel industry, which is now nearly dead, and a strong sealift capability, which has been lost. I participated in the first Gulf War against Iraq and our sealift capability was totally inadequate and it has deteriorated even more since then. To rely on foreign sources for both steel production and sealift capability is suicidal.

      When the national conscience is pricked by conditions outside the country, I would use the military to ease that conscience. For instance, in Darfur, I would have dropped food packets from American planes for the hungry and I would protect those planes with our fighters.

      I support the use of drones and American air power to support causes we, as a nation, sympathize with. People talk about collateral damage in drone strikes, but the fact is that anyone close enough to Taliban fighters and terrorists, and who harbor them and give them succor, are just as guilty and just as much our enemies as they are. If people shunned members of the Taliban and terrorist groups and punished them themselves, they would be far safer. Civilians in the same house or compound with enemy fighters are also our enemies. They are not innocent "collateral damage".

      I would concentrate on security at home rather than taking the fight overseas on bad intelligence, as in Iraq, which should not have been disturbed. Iraq was actually a very effective counterbalance to Iran and we have lost that. I would also maintain our drone war against terrorists.

      We should only have gone into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government in power at that time and to get Bin Laden. To think we can change an ancient, impoverished society, and bring them into the modern age, when everyone else throughout history has failed is ludicrous. Since we have spent so much blood and treasure there to establish an anti-Taliban government and security forces, I believe we should now keep a core of troops there to keep training the current security forces until they can survive on their own, but these should be non-combat forces that only participate in training and intelligence operations. If the Afghans do not agree to grant our troops immunity from prosecution under Afgan law they should all be removed.

      I consider "water-boarding" torture and I do not believe we should engage in torture. I would not allow such practices. There are other ways to gain cooperation. I do support other means of coercion and intimidation to gain information from detainees such as poor, but adequate, food, uncomfortable living conditions, including heat and cold, and sleep deprivation up to a limit.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, THE PENAL SYSTEM

      #10: The American penal system is a mess. "Penitentiaries", where people were supposed to do penance, are a total failure. Hardly anyone does penance and all we are really doing is caging people in an inhumane environment. Long jail sentences in our penitentiaries are cruel and inhumane treatment. Our "correctional facilities" are really no more than brutal animal houses that cost a tremendous amount to maintain. Money like that would be much better spent on something like healthcare, Social Security or national security. Of course some classes of criminals need to be incarcerated for long periods, but they should be put to work and not left idle in cages. Their work should produce income to help pay for their incarceration.

      At any given time America has 1 in 100 of its citizens in prison. This is more than any other country, even oppressive regimes. This is outrageous.

      One of the main reasons is all the laws we pass trying to get other people to stop whatever it is they are doing, like marijuana and driving above a .08 level. Just look at the "court report" in your own town and take note of how many of the items are related to DUI's, marijuana possession, or domestic violence. Add to that the number of divorce cases the court must hear and you have one big mess. Most of these cases shouldn't even be in the courts, including most of the domestic violence cases. (Don't forget just as many wives assault their husbands as husbands assault their wives.)

      The cost of all this comes to $200 billion dollars a year. Take a minute to click on Senator Webb's Facts About The Prison System site. We have a higher percentage of people in prison, people we are paying a lot of money to provide for under secure conditions, than any other country in the world. More than even Russia, China or North Korea. When someone gets put in prison for a parole violation because he got a DUI, and had no license, but had no other way to get to work but to drive, violating his parole, the economy loses a worker and the prison population, and cost, goes up. Someone with 5 grams of crack cocaine is sentenced as though he had 300 grams of regular cocaine. This obsession with putting addicts in jail is not only insane, but cruel. The thing to do is put to death those who sell deadly drugs. They are murderers, but they kill with drugs instead of guns. If a person took a needle full of heroin and injected it into some hapless soul, killing him, that person would be tried and sentenced as a murderer. The person selling the deadly drugs is that murderer.

      I want to limit the appeals process to six months on capital crimes and create special courts to deal with this process if the regular courts cannot accommodate that schedule. However, with the other legal changes, the courts should be much less busy. The drop in domestic cases alone should free up vast amounts of time. Victims of violent crimes and their families no longer receive swift justice and this is wrong.

      I don't like the death penalty, but I believe it is a necessary evil because decent people should not have to foot the bill to maintain the worst of the worst for all those years. I want to expand capital punishment to include dealers of deadly drugs and those who were brutal in their crimes, including rapists. Persons under the age of 21 who committed non-violent statutory rape would not be executed. People committing violent crimes in prison would also be executed.

      A lot of Americans are against capital punishment because they have been taught that the sixth Commandment says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". The correct translation, however, is, "Thou Shalt Not "Murder". It allows killing for self defense, capital punishment, and warfare. Otherwise how could Moses have told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites when they were conquering Canaan?

      Where there is absolutely no doubt about a criminal's guilt, I firmly believe in capital punishment. "Absolutely no doubt" is intended here to be a stronger determination than "beyond reasonable doubt" and should be supported by strong evidence such as DNA that removes all doubt, and in such cases as Charles Manson or the Fort Hood terrorist. This would provide protection for those wrongly convicted on such crimes on weaker evidence.

      The war on drugs has been a failure. Until the advent of opium based products, it was considered unconstitutional to restrict what a person could do with regards to drugs and alcohol. Opium was a prime ingredient in most patent medicines and a very large number of people were becoming addicted and were dying at an alarming rate. As funny as it may seem, when heroin was first developed it was praised as a cure for opium addiction, which had become a national crisis. It didn't take too long to realize heroin was even worse and political action was finally taken to control opium based drugs, restricting them to a doctor's prescription and management.

      I believe that nothing found in nature is evil unto itself. It all depends how a thing is used. I believe man is natural and what he does is natural, but I am not including man-made drugs like methamphetimines here, things created through man's manipulation, but only things found alongside man in nature. Even poisons have their uses. I see no problem with a person chewing a coca leaf, like they do in Equador, for a boost. I find it no worse than coffee. Refined cocaine, however, is deadly and a whole different story. Many pharmaceutical plants grow in every garden and meadow and if a person knows how to use them, he should be allowed to.

      Some, like alcohol (which also occurs naturally), need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the young because they hurt the growth and development process. I believe marijuana ought to be decriminalized and sold in liquor stores. Its use is already widespread and to pretend there is a "war" on it is ridiculous. This will also reduce court burdens. Also, as there are less "criminals" to catch, we need fewer police. Fewer laws means less policing and less people in jail.

      Indeed, the reason we have too many people in jail is because we are too lenient on the really violent and too harsh with people who are addicts or who have committed minor crimes. We also make criminals out of too many people with all our safety laws and are imprisoning people with mental health issues when we should be treating them and caring for them in a compassionate environment.

      I would, wherever possible, replace prison terms with fines and community service.

THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

      #11: The educational system is a mess. We should re-institute discipline in the schools and see to it that order is maintained. Most importantly, every student in every school should have access to the same quality books, computers and labs and have the same teacher-to-student ratio. I would adjust the Federal sales tax (I discuss dumping the income tax below) to see that all our children get the same amount of funding and have the very best education.

      The education of our children is a matter of national security and interest. We need to therefore make it something that ALL citizens contribute to, not just property owners. Funding the schools through property taxes is outdated and unfair to property owners. We should free the property owners from this burden and have each Americn pay his equal, and fair, share. Since all members of society now benefit from the education of its citizens, all members of society should contribute equally to that education.

      As it is now, with the funding coming primarily from property taxes, children in the ghettos and lower income areas have inferior funding and an inferior education, which nearly guarantees they will have inferior economic opportunities as adults.

      Right now only 50% of our children graduate high school. This is a disaster for everything from the economy to national security. Those that do graduate are often just "passed along" so they "don't feel bad about themselves", another sick effect of the over-sensitized, drugged-out 60's generation. Those who go on to college often don't even have basic reading and writing skills, something that now often has to be taught in college. This is no less than disgusting. I want to make it mandatory for all children to graduate high school, without being passed along, by re-instituting truancy laws and making parents accountable. Children who are chronically truant, or who refuse to behave, will be sent to "reform schools" like we used to have for problem children, where "tough love" is the rule of the day.

      It is a very sad fact that a third of all Americans today cannot tell you how many branches of government we have or what their functions are. How are these individuals supposed to vote responsibly? Americans no longer know their own history, much less world history and this, too, is a recipe for disaster. Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" bit might be funny, but, really, it is an extremely sad commentary on American education.

      We also need to see to it that all children are required to not only learn English, but to speak it properly, so they have the necessary skills to be successful in the marketplace. Can anyone picture Barak Obama speaking ebonics?

      We also need to see to it that we have enough schools so our children aren't getting home at 5PM or later to accommodate double shifts in the schools. As it is now, I see children going off to school at 7:30AM and children coming home at 5:30PM where I live. There is no excuse for this. There is also no excuse to have children in school until mid-June and going back in mid-August. The reason all this is happening is because we have loaded up the curriculum with "social engineering" classes and "state religion" classes instead of sticking to the basics.

      The state has no business teaching a Godless state religion to our children. For instance, in the town of Mendocino, just to the south of me, they parade homosexuals into the sixth grade classes to "teach tolerance" to the children. Homosexuality is a matter for the parents to teach their children about depending on their individual faiths. The state has no place teaching such things to our children if there is to be a true separation of church and state.

      I should mention, however, that I strongly support the right of a community to have non-denominational prayer in their schools as 95% of the population believes in a Creator. This is not "teaching religion", but something simple that only takes a minute, and reinforces the "spiritual", not "religious", beliefs of the vast majority of the population. Parents who don't want their children participating in the prayer could have their children excused, though I feel sorry for those poor lost souls and their children.

      We also need to see to it that all teachers once again receive a respectable salary and benefits, like they used to, and are properly certified, so we attract the very best to educate our children. If cuts have to be made in government spending, education should never be cut, nor funding for our public libraries. Education is the very cornerstone of all civilized, prosperous, societies.

      We also need to ensure poor teachers are flushed from the system. As teachers are part of the public sector, they should not be allowed to unionize. I would suggest legislation that ensures they are remunerated at a rate that makes teaching a very attractive job opportunity, doing away with the need for a teachers' union.

CAMPAIGN REFORM

      #12: I want to see an end to politicians and the special interest groups who support them buying elections. We should limit campaigning so we have a campaign season that begins on the first of January and ends on election day. We should ban all lobby and special interest money from campaign coffers. Candidates who gather enough signatures would be allotted time on an equal basis on a government owned television channel. They would be allowed a single site on the Internet. That would be it. No ads, no buttons, no hype, no bumper stickers, no bought rallies, no sound bites. Positions on issues would only be presented in a single forum so everyone gets to hear the same thing, not something custom tailored to a specific group. This would operate at all levels of government. It is time to take the bull and money out of the political process. We have the technology and the wealth of the candidates should not give them an edge. Political office should not be for sale as it is now.

      Some would say that this is a restriction on the freedom of speech of special interests that support different candidates, as the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are "individuals" when it comes to campaign donations, so I believe we would need a constitutional amendment to make these changes. Such an amendment would have to come from a grass roots movement nationwide as the self-serving politicians would never promote such a thing. The amendment should contain a clause that requires all elected officials to live by the laws they pass that all other Americans must live by. It should also limit and eliminate the gross amount of benefits and perks the politicians have voted for themselves over the years. I would also like to see it impose term limits at all levels of government to do away with "career" politicians and families of politicians.

      "Public Service" should be just that, not a career. I discuss this in another place, but we need 2 term limits on ALL political offices and should only allow individuals to continue in "Public Service" if they move on to a higher office after their 2 terms have been completed. Career politicians and "political families" like the Clintons, Bushes and Kennedys are a curse on the nation. These people do not vote their consciences, they vote by poll, and lobby influence, with the only goal being the perpetuation of their political careers and priviledge.

INCOME TAX VERSUS FLAT FEDERAL SALES TAX

      #13: One of the advantages of Federal and State sales taxes, in lieu of income taxes, is that we know, each time we buy something, what we are paying for our government. Maybe we will decide we can't afford everything we want. But I believe, if we get our house in order in this dramatic way, that we can. And we can have it our way. At least we will all be able to see what we are actually paying for everything each time we buy a taxable item. It's like using cash instead of a credit card. It hurts a bit. Of course the states will also need to switch to a sales tax only tax system. No more income taxes except for the very rich.

      This would also save a lot of money as we did away with the income tax bureaucracies and all the law enforcement that goes with them. It would also do away with tax cheats. Everyone who buys, pays. Every citizen would be contributing to supporting the government. That, alone, would add a lot of revenue to government coffers. Basic foods and prepared foods would be exempt from the sales tax. I would tax junk foods and beverages but exclude prepared foods because many of the poor and elderly rely on prepared foods.

      I would keep the income tax for people making more than $1,000,000 to ensure money is kept flowing through the economy and not being hoarded by the very rich. This cash flow is essential to a strong economy. The income tax on the wealthy would be graduated with no one paying more than a 50% tax rate.

      The federal and state sales taxes would also be graduated. Luxury items would be taxed at a higher level so the wealthy contribute more.

      There would be no "penalty" taxes on tobacco or alcohol that pay for other things like schools and roads. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and sweets will be taxed at a rate proportional to the health care costs for each incurred by the population for their abuse as a whole. In other words, alcohol will have a tax adequate to pay for the country's health care costs due to alcohol abuse and sweets will have a tax that covers the cost of obesity, etc. Everyone I know has a vice and it is time we stop making particular villains out of this or that group. Also, it really bothers me that increasing tobacco taxes have forced the less wealthy addicts to turn to non-filtered hand-made cigarettes, speeding their demise. Time and again I see the "well intentioned" put unfair burdens on others like this, you all have examples, and it has to stop. The common man needs his simple pleasures or he will take up the guns the founding fathers knew he might need to overthrow his own government, and do it.

      We don't have a right to have guns to hunt game. We have the right to own guns in case our own government becomes oppressive and fails to obey the constitution. I will protect every citizen's right to bear arms for this very reason. I want my guns in case my government gets too oppressive. I also want them to make meat if everything goes down the tubes, but I doubt that will happen unless we really blow it or get hit with a big rock from space.

      Each year, on December 31st, the governmental budgets expended in the previous year should be totaled and the sales taxes for the next year should be set to cover those expenses. This way, each year, we cover our bills for the previous year and avoid national debt. Of course the legislatures could increase the tax for expected increased spending in the new year.

      Because each new expenditure will affect the sales tax, it will make it much harder for the politicians to push "special" projects through that cost us money we don't want to spend. It makes every spending bill much more conspicuous to the average citizen and holds the politicians to a much higher level of scrutiny and accountability.

      Just a 2.54% sales tax on GDP at all levels of profit, excluding all food sales, whether prepared food or not, as the old and homeless often rely on prepared foods, would cover the current federal budget. States could add a sales tax that also covers their budgets. This not only reduces taxes on most tax paying Americans, but also ensures that everyone, including all those people in the underground economy and welfare communities pay tax according to their consumption of non-essential items.

There is $500,000,000 in federal tax fraud every year and there is an estimated $2,000,000,000,000 in the underground economy on which no taxes are paid. Accounting for this increased spending also lowers the federal sales tax rate by about an eigth, or 12.5%, to 2.225% of the GDP.

I am basing this on figures for all sources of income for the federal government, i.e,, all revenues received. This includes corporate taxes. Under my plan, corporate taxes would be eliminated and this would spur a major growth in industry in the United States.

Just an 2.75% sales tax on the GDP would enable us to eliminate the deficit and debt.

This percentage could be distributed over different levels of production, from raw materials to wholesale production to retail sales, as long as the GDP is taxed at an overall 2.75% rate.

This would do away with income taxes and ensure that everyone is paying something to support the system, according to their consumption rate of non-essential items, and hence their need.

Additional taxes on alcohol, tobacco and sweets, as outlined above, would also decrease the general federal tax rate. This would result in most cases to a retail price increase of about 7.75% except on harmful things like tobacco, alcohol and sweets, but there would be no income taxes.

An income tax on the very rich would lower this rate, People making over $1,000,000 per year would also be subject to a graduated income tax rate to keep money flowing through the economy. It is "cash flow" that keeps an economy vital. If we allow all money to flow to the top, that cash flow stops and the economy stagnates. Income re-distribution must be a part of any modern economy. There are different ways to accomplish this. I would prefer that the extraordinarily wealthy be required to spend a certain percentage of their yearly income on public service projects, like computer labs in schools, than through govenment taxation and government programs. But if they refuse to agree to this form of taxation, then the government must tax and spend to keep the money flow going through the economy. This increased spending, voluntary or not, would also decrease the federal tax rate overall,

Government assistance could be increased for the extremely poor to offset some of the sales tax if deemed necessary for several differnet reasons.

ABORTION

      #14: I am pro-life and pro-abortion. I know this sounds contradictory.

      Life does not "begin" in the womb. It is passed on like a flowing river through each generation. It makes whatever creature according to what it finds encoded in its DNA. It is the same Life in all living things and it has always been considered as sacred. This is why we strive for the most merciful way of killing, and demand the humane treatment of animals. However, China already has a one child per family rule and other countries will inevitably follow as the world population continues to explode.

      Also, sadly, the fact of the matter is that every society on the face of the Earth used to practice infanticide in bad times. Many poor cultures still practice it. During the Great Depression the number of abortions skyrocketed because people could not afford another mouth to feed. My stepfather told me his own mother had 86 such abortions during the Great Depression, though I can't help but think he was exaggerating.

      Female children are victimized much more than males because poor people do not want more wombs making more babies to feed. I know all this is very cruel and inhumane, but it is sadly true. I believe in the ideals of the faiths and that sex should be for reproduction, but that is not the human reality and I am a realist. Although it would be better if every conceived child could be brought to term and raised in a good home, that is just not possible.

      For countless generations women who had an unwanted pregnancy had to resort to unsafe means to terminate it. I believe we have to allow this option, even though it is morally repugnant, but believe we should restrict it to very early term unless the life of the mother is in danger. It is better to terminate that without a developed central nervous system, than that with, as our ancestors did. Maybe we can stop finding abandoned babies in dumpsters that way.

      I believe we have reached a population level where birth control is not just moral, but necessary. But we have to remember that birth control is not 100% effective and that many methods are dangerous and some women don't want to use them. We should continue, however, to encourage mothers to go full term and for those that do we should provide placement for their unwanted children.

      I know this stance won't be popular with many conservative religious groups, but I am a man who sees the Creator in all living things and I still think it is a necessary evil.

THE HOMELESS

      #15: We have a large homeless problem. By providing a free marketplace and requiring the faiths to fulfill their duties here at home, we will alleviate a good deal of this suffering. We can also not tell a person they can't be homeless and live like that. However, we have a human responsibility to those with mental defects and deadly addictions. By changing our legal system, and reducing our prison populations, we can find the money to adequately provide for these people, many of whom are in prison when they should be in care facilities. We used to do this, pretty poorly, until Reagan abolished that part of our mental health system. We need to reinstate that system so that the mentally ill and those who cannot break their deadly addictions are properly cared for and rehabilitated whenever possible. This has to be quality care.

      I have had encounters with our Mental Health System and find it totally lacking in nearly every way, including basic human compassion. I will change that.

VETERANS' ISSUES

      #16: First, I would like to start by saying that the incidence of rape, of both males and females, in our armed forces is totally out of control and needs to be corrected by taking the investigative and prosecutorial procedures out of the military system. The military has proven itself incapable of properly dealing with this situation.

      Now on to different matters.....All of these are national disgraces.

      We have three huge problems in how we provide for our vets. Veteran suicides and homelessness are huge problems. So, too, is how slow we are to process vet applications for disability.

      We need to increase spending on converting our claims for veterans' disability to a computerized system that is far more efficient. No vet should have to wait for more than 60 days for a determination on their claims for disability. The only way to fix this is through hiring more people to fix this problem. We need to provide more money.

      The suicide rate amongst vets needs to be fixed by providing more outreach and treatment for vets at risk. The Veterans' Administration needs to do far more evaluation and follow up treatment for these people. This will take more funding to provide more stringent guidelines and much closer monitoring of vets after they are discharged. This has to involve frequent visits at home to truely access the mental state of our vets and this scrutiny should continue for at least 12 months after discharge for suspect cases of potential suicide. We need to provide more money.

      Vet homelessness is more readily addressed. We should offer housing for homeless vets on our military bases. Initially this can be simply tents. I'm sure we have plenty of tents available. The vets who take advantage of this can then be put to work building new, more appropriate accommodations for this purpose. Such accommodations should provide small private rooms with basic cooking facilities should they decide to cook their own food. Toilet and bathing facilities can be communal. There should also be a communal dining facility staffed by the vets themselves.

      Vet living quarters and dining facilities should be kept in a separate area off-limits to active service members. We need to provide more money.

      Homeless vets should receive a small welfare stipend while they are housed on base and be given access to the base commissaries.

      Of course vets housed this way should be provided assistance in finding employment so they can re-enter the general population with pride.

IMMIGRATION

      #17: Illegal immigration is a real threat to the nation. However, the nation is at fault for letting things go this far. To solve this I would first build a "Great Wall" to stop the flow. I believe the "Great Wall" could be something as simple as issuing ID cards to legal, or soon to be legal, immigrants that are truely difficult to forge. The people receiving these cards would also be given an Immigrant Social Security number. If we then made it illegal to hire anyone without a Social Security number or Immigrant Social Security number, and impose heavy penalties in the way of fines for employing illegal immigrants, as Arizona just did, we could stop the reason for coming here because there would be no illegal employment opportunities. Social Security taxes collected from immigrant labor would be held in account for them, should they decide to become citizens. If not, the funds would just be additional aid for the Social Security System. If this failed to stop the flow, an actual, physical, wall will be needed in some places, augmented by manpower in other places, to be built along our southern border.

      I believe the country has a moral obligation to those who it let in to do cheap work others didn't want, I would open roads to citizenship, including english proficiency, for those who have been here for a long time. I would also look at increasing immigration quotas, and temporary visas, for South Americans who want to come and work here at the low income jobs. All temporary workers would also have to have an Immigrant Social Security card that could be checked prior to employment.

      I believe english should be the official language of the United States and that all government ballots, publications and tests should only be printed in english.

SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE

      #18: Social Security, as we all know, is in deep doo, so to speak. For the time being, Social Security has to be means tested. Individuals making more than $250,000 per year in retirement obviously don't need Social Security. They already have plenty of "financial security". This alone would go a long way to fixing the problem. I don't like the idea of raising the retirement age, but this might be necessary in the future when better health and fitness is a reality for more people, especially white collar workers. First responders and people engaged in hard physical labor should be exempted from this increase in retirement age, should it become necessary.

      The problem is much more complex because our life expectancy could soon increase to 600 years. Although I know some of the politicians in Washington are aware of this, because Ray Kurzweil, our preeminent futurist scientist, advises them, no one has yet to mention it, much less in the area of Social Security reform. If you think for just a minute, you will see how complex the problem becomes. Not only that, Kurzweil also says we will also be fit and young during these 600 years because we are on the verge of being able to rejuvenate ourselves. The 600 year expectancy is set at 600 years because of the probability of being killed in a catastrophic accident of some sort. This means people will have several "careers" over the course of their lives. For those interested in reading more about this, Kurzweil's book, "The Singularity is Near", makes great reading.

      Because I don't have the figures to crunch, I won't be able to come up with a final plan for Social Security until I can access the budget after all the changes I have made are put into place. I believe, however, that total savings will allow us to make up any current shortfalls with the Federal sales tax.

      If our life spans do increase so dramatically we might want to change Social Security to a plan where every individual has a personal "Security" plan that builds as he moves from job to job. This plan will have the same investment restrictions as normal pension plans, but each individual will be able to direct his own investments. It will also be something he can draw on should he come into a period of hard times during his long life. It will no longer be just a retirement fund.

      Medicare is health insurance we all pay for throughout our lives. I believe it, too, should be means tested, with the wealthy paying for their own health insurance. I believe this is not too much of a burden to place on anyone making more than $250,000 after the age of 65, though a higher limit might be acceptable. Because we need to revamp our healthcare system on a much wider scale, as outlined above in another section, how we save Medicare will require further study as other changes are made. No one over the age of 55 would be affected by any changes needed in the age of eligibility. Any such changes in the eligibility age should be scaled so those 55-65 would see no changes, those age 50-55 would only see a small change, and those under age 50 the maximum change.

      First responders like fire fighters and the police should be exempt from all changes, as should those who do hard manual labor that is hard on the body.

THE WELFARE SYSTEM

      #19: The welfare system in the United States is a disgrace. Democratic politicians, so-called "Progressives", have used the misery of the poor to enhance their own power, position and wealth while ensuring their voting base remains impoverished, ignorant and miserable to ensure their re-election.

      The "War on Poverty" has been a total failure for this reason. Democratic politicians have no reason to truly help raise up the poor because if they did raise them to a level where they would be paying taxes, they would be much more likely to vote for Republicans who want to keep their taxes low.

      Before the "War on Poverty", African Americans only gave birth to 25% of children outside of marriage. Now it is 72%. Democrats have so evolved the welfare state so as to encourage the propagation of babies outside of marriage. This is now spreading into other ethnic groups. Hispanic Americans and Native Americans now have about a 50% rate of so-called single mother births. Non-Hispanic whites are at the old African American rate of about 26%.

      The more children a so-called single mother produces, the bigger the check is that she receives each month. Women are having 10-15 children and are living at middle class levels for doing nothing more than having more children who, themselves, will becomes burdens on society. 50% of the non-food stamp welfare budget goes to so-called single mothers.

      The War on Poverty has done nothing to provide quality education in minority neighborhoods. Poor children are still educated poorly. In most predominantly black schools, children who do well academically are socially ostracized for being "white".

      This has to change. So-called single mothers should not be eligible for social welfare unless they identify the fathers of their children so they can be forced to contribute to the welfare of their children. In New York state, the Democrats passed legislation so mothers specifically DO NOT have to identify the fathers of their children to make it easier for them to get on the welfare roles. Only one parent, the mother, is listed on the birth certificate. These people are "married" by common law in the persons of their children and society has to demand responsibility of anyone receiving public welfare. It is amoral to take money from people who object to childbirth outside of marriage for religious reasons, and give it to people who are doing so. This is another example of the secular, Democratic, state religion trodding on the religious rights of others. It is patently unconstitutional and illegal.

      Welfare should only be provided to people honestly trying to live moral lives that contribute to the welfare of society as a whole. It should be a temporary helping hand with definite limits. After that, people who continue to hold their hands out should be forced to rely on privte charities.

      Democratic politicians talk a lot about the "social responsibility" of the rich, but you never hear them speak about the social responsibilities of the poor and the minorities. They are evil, self-serving individuals who stand on the backs of the poor and who oppress them through poisoned sweets.

CHURCH AND STATE

      #20: There are those who will be concerned about me because of my spiritual beliefs. I discuss these fully on my "Symbol of Unity" site, which I put up several years ago. I claim affiliation with no particular religion or sect as I find error in all. But you will find I respect and honor all the faiths and owe them all much. You might call me a BuChrisHinJewMus, but please don't ;-) .

      I believe in the separation of church and state and will not force my views on anyone. I believe true enlightenment comes from within, not on the edge of a sword. However, I believe the government is supposed to uphold the primary values expressed by all the great faiths that make up the population, and that atheism is not a religion. Ninety-five percent of Americans say they believe in God. The government should reflect this. We should be one nation under God and if a community wants non-sectarian prayer in the schools it should be allowed to have it. The nation needs to stop pandering to atheists who would undermine everything decent and good for society because they personally hate the concept of God and want to be free to do anything they want. All our laws are based on the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist traditions of morality and to follow the atheists is to abandon the collective wisdom of our ancestors concerning what makes a happy, prosperous community and, ultimately, all our laws.

      Our churches are failing us. They all send missionaries overseas, often causing severe social tension, like Christians in Muslim lands, while ignoring the poor and needy at home. I would require all churches to be open 24 hours a day to maintain their tax free status. They are little more than businesses the way they operate now, with very short hours, I might add. A church or temple is a house of God and needs to be open all the time so people can seek sanctuary and solace. There is nowhere for the spouse who needs to get out of the house at midnight to go, for example. And how many homeless might find inspiration sitting there on a rainy day? They should be required to provide shelter, baths and food for the homeless and poor at a reasonable level commensurate with the size and wealth of their congregations. If they are afraid of vandals or thieves, they will have to post a volunteer, or volunteers, to keep an eye on things. If they would rather operate as the businesses they are now, they should be taxed as businesses.

      Because of the decline in religious belief in the United States, it is no longer reasonable to expect the faiths to provide adequate relief for all the poor. As I firmly believe we are our brothers keepers, the state must provide social welfare. This welfare, however, must not encourage women to have children out of marriage nor be so attractive as to encourage people to become permanent wards of the state. It should be a very basic subsistance assistance for the fit-to-work and have a definite time limit. The permanently disabled are cared for through Social Security Disability Insurance.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

      #21: Our invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan were huge mistakes undertaken without consideration of how they would be paid for. Iraq should not have been invaded at all and Afghanistan should have only been invaded to depose the Taliban and catch Bin Laden.

      As stated above in another section, since we have invested so much blood and treasure in Afghanistan I believe we should keep a small, non-combative military presence there to keep its admittedly corrupt anti-Taliban government in power until it consolidates its hold on the country. This aid should only provide further training of Afghan troops and intelligence to the military forces.

      The United States should not be involved in nation building and should not be trying to change ancient cultures into little Americas.

GUANTANAMO AND POW's

      #22: During a war, as in World War II, enemy prisoners on all sides are held in "prisoner of war camps" and released when the war is over. Sometimes they are exchanged. The West did not declare war on Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda declared war on the West. Al-Qaeda slaughters all prisoners of war, contrary to all humane conventions. During World War II, many German troops were held in camps in England. Even after the war, a condition of release was that they wipe their feet on the Nazi flag. I know this because I had one of the last fellows to be released as a Chief Engineer on one of my ships. Prisoners of war are not tried for crimes unless they have committed acts that are considered crimes even in wartime. Because the combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay declared war on us, and we would be glad to cease hostilities at any time, I see no alternative but to hold them in a prisoner of war camp until the war is over, which is really up to them. I would see no problem with such a camp even in the continental United States. We even held German troops here and had them work our fields.

      If any of the prisoners of war at Guantanamo, or in any camp, have slaughtered captured allied soldiers, or given orders to slaughter them, instead of holding them, as we are holding them, I would try them as war criminals and execute them if they are convicted. Some of the people being held there should definitely be executed for crimes committed. If you do not believe this, go and look at one of the Internet beheadings. Can you imagine what we would do to a United States president who did such a thing? Imagine it even in the darkest ghetto....

      IF there is doubt about some of the prisoners' involvement in the war, I would see to it that those prisoners receive a hearing as soon as possible and, if there is no evidence against them, I would release them back into the custody of their home country.

      Americans have a big problem with killing their enemies and criminals. This is because they have been taught that the Commandment is, "Thou Shalt Not KILL", whereas it is actually, "Thou Shalt Not MURDER." This is the literal translation. Otherwise, how could Moses, who gave the law, send the Jews into Canaan telling them to slay all. Also, why would one of Jesus' disciples have a sword with him to cut off the ear of the guard when they came to arrest Jesus? Obviously, even though Jesus taught tolerance and "turning the other cheek", his disciples were armed to protect themselves against the lawless, and were prepared to use their arms if attacked.

      Foreign terrorists should not have American rights or be tried in American courts. They are not American citizens and should not have the rights afforded American citizens. They are enemy combatants and for the most part commit murder and crimes against humanity. They should be tried by military tribunals, especially when they admit the horrendous crimes they are accused of.

      Musharraf, for example, should have no rights under American law or be tried in American courts. An American jury acquitted OJ, for instance. What if a similar jury acquitted Musharraf?

      Domestic "terrorists" have to be tried with full rights because they are American citizens.

OIL AND GAS CRISIS

      #23: The Bakken oil reserves in the Dakotas and Wisconsin are providing a real boost to American oil production and we are now becoming an oil exporting nation. We should be further encouraging this boost by allowing exploration on federal lands, too.

      Because of the apparent possible damage to water tables caused by fracking, I believe companies that want to frack should be required to pay for studies of the water tables in areas they want to frack in, to establish a "before fracking basis", and to place funds in escrow to be used to pay for any damages due to people who are harmed by subsequent fracking and to pay to correct any environmental damage done.

      At the same time, we need to be building new refineries to refine this oil. The major reason the Saudis have refused to increase production in the past to help keep our gas prices lower is that we do not have the refineries to refine any increased production. If the next hurricane season should damage refineries, Americans can expect to see another sharp rise in the price of gas. Again, environmental concerns have greatly hindered us and are contributing greatly to the decline of the American economy. There is no reason these concerns cannot be reasonably addressed, like the construction of CO2 scrubbers at each new refinery to keep them global warming neutral. Oil development and refinement does not equal ecological disaster, but doing nothing does equal economic disaster.

      Of course I am also for an aggressive policy of developing alternative energy sources like wind, solar and tidal. Nuclear technology has also progressed and become much safer, and nanotechnology should provide us a safe, economical, way to deal with the waste before it becomes a problem, so we also need to be developing it. Did you know we already have a car developed that gets 300 miles per gallon? We also know how to extract hydrogen from sea water. Although it takes more conventional energy from oil or coal to make it economically feasible, using solar or wind generated energy will soon make it economical to do. Our technology can solve our energy needs if we just keep investing in the companies seeking answers to our problems.

THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, NAFTA AND FREE TRADE

      #24: Although no one could reasonably promote economic isolationism in this day and age, NAFTA and the legal "outsourcing" of jobs are having catastrophic impacts on the American economy. NAFTA should be re-evaluated, and possibly re-negotiated, and "outsourcing" has to be countered through tax advantages, like a reduction in the corporate tax, and other economic inducements, if we are going to rebuild our industrial base and become a real economic force again. We have to stop the trade deficit and make it a trade surplus, or at least trade neutral, or all of our wealth will finally be siphoned off overseas, often into the pockets of American citizens who are now really "international" citizens with homes in several countries and who could care less about the welfare of the American worker.

      Finally: I expect I will amending and adding to this site, but I think I have covered most of the major issues here. If you agree with me, spread the word and get me elected. If you have questions, or want me to add a section to this site, please email me.

FOREIGN AID

      #25: Foreign aid should not be just given to foreign governments. Far too much of it goes to Swiss bank accounts and other forms of corruption.

      ALL foreign aid should be overseen by us. If we decide to give foreign aid in cash to a country, the money should go into a bank account controlled by the US ambassador and two other embassy staff. When the host country wants funds for a specific project, all expenditures should be paid for by the ambassador after being approved by him and the two other embassy staff appointed to oversee such expenditures. The embassy should then audit expenditures to ensure the monies are being spent properly and accounted for so no fraud is committed.

      Other forms of aid, like food and medicine, should also be controlled by, and audited by, our own embassy with at least three individuals having to sign off on each disbursement so the goods are not just sold by corrupt host country personnel.

      Of course stateside personnel should be overseeing and auditing all expenditures and disbursements authorized by our embassy.

GUN CONTROL

      #26: The constitution gives us the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and to protect the constitution from the corruption of government officials who would violate the constitution, not so we can go hunting.

      The constitution prohibits "infringement" on our right to arm ourselves. Thus all infringements such as the laws in place in New York city, Chicago and Washington, DC, are unconstitutional. We DO NOT need anyone's approval to carry a weapon. If criminals know that any of their victims might be carrying a gun, robbery, rape and murder rates would drop significantly.

      Limits on the types of guns people can have, and the size of their magazines, are also unconstitutional as those weapons might be necessary to fight against the government to protect the constitution and our rights and liberties. In fact, it is every citizen's responsibilty to take up arms against the government if it violates the constitution and our constitutional rights.

      I believe we are already at a point where anyone would be justified in taking up arms against the federal government because it is violating the constitution in many ways, though I am certainly not advocating that as we still have the power to rein in the government through the ballot and the constitutional process.

      Mass killings are a big concern. To stop this madness, the Public Health Service should be monitoring all persons identified as having mental health issues and those people who are determined to be at risk for violent action should be institutionalized.

THE DEFICITS, BUDGET & KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS

      #27: If my idea of federal and state sales taxes in lieu of income taxes is adopted there should be no government deficits. The budget should always be covered and balanced.

      In times of economic collapse Keynesian economics are very useful. They were first utilized in the Great Depression and worked well. In the late 30's politicians became concerned about the national debt and curbed the government's Keynseian efforts and the economy slipped back into recession.

      During this Great Recession, Keynesian policies have helped greatly to stabilize the economy and little inflation has been evident because the recession is worldwide and the dollar is still the benchmark currency.

      If my tax policies are adhered to, however, there should be no need for Keynesian policies.

IRAN

      #28: We let North Korea develop nuclear weapons. I believe this was a failure in diplomacy with China. We should have convinced China that a North Korean instigation of nuclear war would most likley draw in their ally, China, and that such a war would result in MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction. We didn't do that so North Korea got The Bomb. We are fortunate that North Korea is not ruled by radical fundamentalist Muslims that believe martyrdom will ensure their entry into a heaven that promises them 72 virgins.

      Iran is a different situation. Iran IS ruled by hateful, radical, fundamentalist Muslims who DO believe martyrdom will get them just that. Backed by the Revolutionary Guard, the mullahs in that country have sponsored terrorism, including suicide bombers, since they came into power.

      Fortunately Iran is not just a threat to America. They hate, and want the destruction, of EVERYONE. They are a threat to not just the western world, but also China and Russia. No one wants Iran to get The Bomb so we need not fear taking the strongest course of action against them.

      The recent accord with Iran needs to be honored, though I would not have made it, because some in Iran want it to work. However, we need to make it clear to Iran that we demand a UN inspector on duty 24 hours a day in their enrichment facilities by the end of 2014 to ensure they do not enrich beyond the level necessary to power nuclear power plants and that ALL weapons grade enriched material has to be destroyed.

      We also need to let them know that if they EVER test a bomb, that within weeks we will bomb them back into the stone age using conventional weapons. We will totally destroy their cities and infrastructure without ever putting boots on the ground. We should not try to "nation build" in Iran. We should not put troops on the ground there. We can achieve a total victory there through air power alone.

      Nuclear weapons can be made to fit in a suitcase and I know how easy it would be to get such a weapon into ANY country. I don't want to elaborate here, to give terrorists a plan, but I do know I could do it if I had the suitcase in hand.

      We cannot allow a nuclear Iran. We must make that perfectly clear to them and they must believe they are on a path to self destruction if they continue to pursue such a course.





Please forward questions and comments:

Via Email to:
Capt. Cass


CONTACT INFO:

Mail:

Capt. J. H. (Cass) Forrington
P. O. Box 56
Fort Bragg, Ca 95437

Mendocino County
United States of America

Lat 39-26.5N Long 123-48.5W

Email Me

Site Map

Web Author: Capt. J. H. (Cass) Forrington
Copyright ©2008 This Site and Contents are Copyright Protected
- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED