Please note that I am not "running" for president in any way but this website. I don't want
to "party" and am not a "party" member. I'm totally disgusted with "parties".
Like you, I am as mad as hell!
I'm "walking for president". The biggest problem in this country is that we have a 2-party
"system" that promotes extremes instead of common sense, middle-of-the-road, solutions, and the biggest spender
normally wins.
I don't want your money and I don't want to buy a political office. I don't even really want the job.
So if you think I'm right, and I'm the guy for 2012, then you have to get active to get
me on the ballot in your state and then get me elected. If elected, I am willing to serve.
Good Luck with that because without a massive grass-roots movement, the news
services will just ignore me. You better get busy.
I am leaving what I have written before on this site so you can judge my judgement on the
various problems we face over time. My latest entries are at the beginning and my basic
positions follow below.
HOT TOPICS
I don't want this site to become a blog. There has just been so much going on of major importance that I haven't
added to this site in awhile. My basic postions and some other opinions are on this site. Please visit my
BLOG SITE for my opinions on current hot matters as things develop.
THE ECONOMY
There have been no prosecutions of the SOB's on Wall Street who raped the economy because the politicians, including
Obama, the SEC and the Justice Department are all on the take. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are filled with
thieves and liars who constantly betray the public trust. They are even worse than the SOB's on Wall Street. My
controlled revolution is the only solution.
Our economy cannot exist without a circulation of money. The bankers have stolen all the money, and all the property,
by selling products they knew were poison to the economy but enriching for them. That is fraud. It is the same as selling
shares in a gold mine that doesn't exist.
All aspects of the government are too invested in the banks. Too many politicians get contributions and too many people
in the regulatory and judiciary move on to high paying jobs with the banks.
We can not allow them to get away with this, but even more important is the flow and distribution of money. The too
wealthy few are hoarding it. They wouldn't be in that postion if they had not broken the law.
The punishment of the CitiBank executive was a joke. HIs decisions drove people to suicide and others are in
terrible straits.
The richest Americans have to pay a much higher tax to redistribute the money and create a money flow. This has to
be used to pay down the debt and balance the budget. Then it has to be used to pay for a massive public works
projects that repair, rebuild and upgrade our infrastructure. The government can do this when it is running a
surplus. I talk about this more in other places.
Besides re-establishing true "Free Enterprise" as i mentioned at the very beginning of this page, we also need to
do the following:
1: The managers of the Big Banks who brought the economy to its knees need to go to prison and serve hard time, not
some country-club prison. Their assets need to be confiscated and put into the treasury.
2: The Big Banks need to be broken up so they are no longer "too big to fail".
3. The Medical monopolies need to be done away with.
4: The "employer-based" health care system needs to be completely overhauled or done away with.
5: Social Security and Medicare need to be "means tested". Certainly people in retirement making more than $250,000 a year
do not need Social Security and Medicare should be a back-up safety net for them and people who make even more.
6. We need to end the stupid wars and spend that money on infrastructure. Only American products and labor should be used
for these projects.
7: We need to stop playing games with China regarding tariffs and currency. If they do not want an equal playing
field, we should stop playing.
8: We need to change NAFTA and penalize companies that ship jobs overseas.
9: We need to dump the IRS, and its state equivilents, and income taxes, and go to graduated Federal and State sales
taxes, while maintaining an income tax on the wealthiest Americans so they don't absorb all the wealth.
10. We need to get all money out of politics, put an end to "career politicians", and make government service just that:
term limited government "service".
All these things are critical and I discuss them in more detail in other sections and on my
Past Issues & Comments Page
THE CLIMATE
This issue should be our top priority. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, ARE GOING TO DIE
IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS! See my section on Global Warminmg
for more on this!
We need to be investing in CO2 scrubbers and to be getting the whole industrial world to do
the same, and we need to be doing it now. We also need to be investing in the technology
to separate CO2 into C and O2 so we can add more O2 to the atmosphere and be storing carbon
in a solid form so we can re-release it into the atmosphere as the next Ice Age sets in
to warm the planet back up. We can control the climate now and we ought to be pursuing the
technology that will allow that.
THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER
Though not a "hot topic" at the moment, we are rapidly depleting the High Plains Aquifer
that supplies water to our farms. This will be a hot topic in the very near future
and if we let it go until then we will be facing famine and worse.
We need to be building de-salinazation plants as soon as we can, on the Saudi model, so we
can pump fresh water back into this aquifer. If we do not, the dust bowl of the Great
Depression will seem like nothing as farmers lose the ability to grow any crops at all.
I don't know what else can be said about that. It is a looming catastrophe with only one
solution. This can be paid for with a farmers' tax based upon use that will, unfortunately,
have to be passed on to the consumer through higher food costs.
ENERGY
I totally agree with President Obama's investment in alternative energy. Research and development in
alternative energy will bring far more benefits and help the environment and economy much more than "Cap and Trade"
which is a joke that only hampers the economy. We also need to aggressively develop
the Bakken oil reserves in the Dakotas, the oil shales in Pennsylvania, and the
North slope of Alaska. I talk about these
in more depth elsewhere and their development should be tied to the building of CO2
scrubbers.
In spite of the catastrophe in Japan, nuclear power also has to be updated and developed further.
Of course we should not build nuclear plants on fault lines or near population centers. The
French model shows us that nuclear technology has moved greatly forward since we last
considered it, making it much safer, and in the next 20 years nanotechnology should
provide us with a reasonable, safe, solution for nuclear waste. If we begin building
nuclear plants now, in remote areas where any dangers would be minimized, we will be able
to deal with the waste problem by the time it becomes an issue for those plants.
I agreed with the cessation of the building of new nuclear plants when the technology was
more primitive, but great advances have been made and any alien civilization would now
consider us just plain stupid for not developing it further so we can power our new
electric cars, etc. It is very fine to develop electric cars, etc., but if we power them
through coal and oil-fired electric plants, we achieve nothing. We need economical, clean,
electric plants to provide the electricity for these cars and nuclear technology can now
safely provide that power.
The disaster in Japan points out the need to isolate these plants, but we do still need them.
ABOUT ME
First of all, I don't really want the job because the next president is probably going to be unpopular
and disliked. This is because things are So messed up that a president who gets
nothing done will be president over a time of catastrophe, and a president who gets what needs
to be done done, that he will make all kinds of people upset about all kinds of different
things. Sounds like a tough spot to be in. I am only doing this out of a sense of duty.
And of course I know I stand very little chance of being elected, but humor me, as this is what
I would do.
That being said, I have two wonderful daughters I dote on. I can
guarantee you that my daughters do not agree with everything I think. They are their
own individuals and have their own ideas and lives. Please don't paint my daughters with
their daddy's brush. They have their own color.
I am 62 years-old.
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 should unfortunately kick off, 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 considered
"handsome" by some and "attractive" to many. I am also 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 this past year, was in my academic section in Kings Point.
Unlike General Clark, I have had a lot of "broad
experience" in the world. As I said above, 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 and believe; my
spiritual beliefs; please
visit my Symbol of Unity site.
I began that way before this little 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 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.
Many of you will wonder if I am serious about what follows. I am. I am serious about what I think
the country needs, even though I doubt I could ever be elected on such a platform.
It is a radical
proposal and many will wonder "Who does this guy think he is?" Really, I think I'm just
another fed up guy with a great education and background for the job. Just briefly, I don't
want power or fame and my main interests lay in the spiritual plane, so I really don't
want this job, but feel someone has to do it.
Because this is a radical proposal, I doubt
I stand a chance of getting elected unless the Tea Party and OWS protestors get behind me, I have NO organization,
so if you want me, get busy. I think it is important for
someone who really doesn't want to be president to put forth what he thinks is really wrong
with the country and some possible solutions. I served this country for 27 years at sea and
could do another 4 if it would fix things substantially.
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. We cannot fix the system from within
the system. It is too broken. We have to take extreme corrective measures. I am proposing
just that. Let's temporarily shut down the system for repairs.
I know that sounds radical, but hear me out. If for no other reason, support me to show
just how discontented we all are or to support some of my solutions to our problems, which I
discuss below.
I would like my campaign, itself,
to be an example for the new America. I am accepting no money and am running a strictly
Internet campaign. 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 know, 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.
America is in a state of emergency. Your current batch of politicians won't tell you this
because they know they have to pander to too broad a range of people to get elected. I don't
have to worry about that because I don't think I will be elected anyway. This is because I am
proposing the very hard road. Not just the hard road, but the very hard road, and I really
don't think my fellow Americans have the guts for it because I am not talking "evolution",
but controlled "revolution".
We face crisis in the environment, health care, social security, the economy, the family,
foreign relations, and what else? You name it.
Iraq was a tremendous mistake 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 Afganistan.
This will continue in Afganistan even if Iraq is stabilized, which is highly doubtful since
the "civil war" there is not a civil war at all, but a religious conflict.
(I discuss this more below.)
The price of oil and gas is skyrocketing while the oil
companies are making record profits. 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 entering a deepening
recession and people are having a hard time putting food on the table. Meanwhile vast oil
deposits are going untapped in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Pennsylvania and Alaska due to
ecological concerns that can be easily addressed. Even if we begin to aggressively tap
these reserves, which probably contain two to three times the oil in the Middle East, we
have no refineries to refine the oil.
At the same time, 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,
like I propose below, 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 dispositon
of wealth after a couple has a truely 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.
What I am about to say will make many of you want to tear your hair out. Please remember
I do not expect to be elected. The road is too hard for too many. But if elected, I would
do it because I think the country needs it and this site lets me put forth some of my ideas
in the public forum. So please leave your hair alone, stay calm and read through each issue,
it's not a long site. You might want to influence your own party with some of my ideas.
DEMOCRACY VERSUS REPUBLIC
When President:
#1: If I don't get enough fellow independents in congress to get major things done, to break the power and stranglehold
of the Republicans and Democrats, I will declare an official state of emergency and disband congress. I will impose
martial law, if necessary, to maintain public order and the rule of law. (Please keep reading, even if this alarms you)
Actually, if I got elected, and there were to be civil unrest, it
would probably occur before I took office, so President Obama would probably have to declare
the martial law.
If there were no civil unrest, martial law would not be required. I would do this because it is the only way I see to
save the Republic,
as Augustus Caesar saved the Roman Republic, and there is no way to enact the changes we
require through Congress as it is. I don't want the job if I can't get it done, and it
can't be done through Congress or the courts. If we don't do this now, and keep going
downhill, we will finally have a president declare himself dictator and anarchy will soon
follow. I explain this below. If we let that happen, we will end up with whatever that
person thinks is best, rather than making the decisions ourselves by electing a person
who will make the changes we want and then retire, yes, like me ;-).
We are in the mess we are in because we are now a
"democracy" instead of a "republic", which is what the founding fathers established. The
difference is that in a republic, voting is a privilege which is earned, while in a
democracy even people with an IQ of 70 and the totally ignorant can vote. I am sorry if
this offends you because you lack intelligence or education, but I am a plain speaker
and I believe far too many people have the vote.
The founding fathers established a Republic and voting was restricted. This is as it should be.
Toynbee, probably the world's finest historian, has noted that great civilizations begin as
Republics. Republics degenerate into Democracies; Democracies degenerate into Dictatorships;
and Dictatorships degenerate into Anarchy. The only society I know of to forestall the decline
into anarchy was Rome because Augustus Caesar re-established the Republic at the end of his
reign.
By 1860, the election just before the Civil War, all men were enfranchised (allowed to vote)
as self-serving politicians tried to expand the voting base so they would get elected. When
women were enfranchised in 1920, everyone could vote and most people had little education,
especially the women of that time.
The founding fathers set a young voting age (young to us) because people died young. Life
expectancy in their day, 1800, was only thirty-eight years. A man had lived more than half
his life by the time he hit twenty-one.
In a democracy, like we have now, self-serving politicians who pander to every special
interest, instead of their consciences, rise to the top. The people vote themselves both
the moral and monetary treasuries and the society goes into deep decline, like we are now,
filled with discontented individuals, so our very courtrooms need metal detectors to protect
the proceedings within from the outraged, and hated from without. This is the rot of Rome.
In the last election, for instance, Kerry said he was a "Catholic" and against abortion,
but it was fine with him if that is what the people want. This is the epitome of a
pandering politician who just wants to win, no matter what his supposed personal beliefs.
He acts on poll and not on conscience, or he lied about what he is and believes. This is
not a leader, who inspires people to higher action and values, but a selfish, self-serving,
pandering fool who will sell his conscience and faith for power and fame. I find most
of our politicians to be like that these days, but that is the fault of the democracy.
Because we now live so much longer, (current life expectancy for those under age fifty, in
fairly good health, is now 600 years. I know this sounds outrageous, but if you look up
Ray Kurzweil's work online, who was awarded several presidential medals and advises
Congress and the Council of Foreign Relations on our scientific future, you will see why
I believe this), and because intelligence and wisdom should lead a society, not high school
dropouts and teenagers, if elected I will change the Constitution so that only married individuals
at least age 25, with university degrees, can vote. I realize some individuals are intelligent
and well-educated and don't have university degrees. There would also be a test to allow
these people to vote. Also, widowed individuals and those who divorced for reasons meeting
the new divorce critieria would maintain their votes. In other words, if you are once eligible
to vote, you will probably always be allowed to vote.
All combat veterans would also be allowed to vote. Not military clerks
and support personnel, but people who have actually been combat troops.
I would also allow real property owners to continue to vote and the new
restrictions would only apply to un-propertied individuals who do not meet the new criteria. All new
voters would have to meet the new criteria, but property ownership alone will no longer be acceptable by
itself to qualify a voter. In other words, if you currently own a home or
business property, you will keep your vote. You will keep that vote even if you sell or lose that
property.
This is the hardest pill I have for you to swallow. I am asking a lot of you to give up your vote.
I am asking you to be humble and truthful with yourself for the sake of your country and
children.
If elected I will declare a state of emergency, which is very real. I will disband all state
legislatures and the Federal Congress. New elections will be held in four years so we have
time to adjust to the other changes I will also make and debate has a full time to flourish.
I also promise to poll the entire population on every major change before
I make it. I will do this via polling services, like Gallup, and the Internet. On controversial
issues I will open public forums and I will talk to you regularly on TV and radio. I am not
saying I will always go with the majority, but it seems likely since if I actually got elected
it would mean an awful lot of people out there agree with me. And of course everyone
can open their own forums to discuss different issues online.
In the meantime elected governors will have total authority over their states while working
with me to revive and renew the republic. They will also have responsibility for cleaning up
problems and making things more efficient, in areas politics made impossible before, within
their own states, using the same polling methods I am using, but we can all keep it
cheap with modern technology.
Current members of Congress and the state legislatures will be considered to have completed
their service and will not be allowed to run for the same level office they held before,
only a higher one. Too many of these people have been tainted by the current system and
have tasted too much lobby money. If we are going to clean house, let's do it.
The new elections will be held without "parties" and with no outside money. Candidates will
be given equal time on a government TV channel and the Internet to express their ideas and
will be winnowed down through polls until a reasonable number of candidates is reached for the final election.
Candidates will be allowed one Internet site for their campaign.
This process will require voters to actually listen to the candidates instead of voting on the basis of sound bites,
TV commercials, talking points and party platforms.
Term limits will be set for all politicians, the same as the president. No one will be
allowed to "serve" more than two terms unless they are elected to higher office, like a
House member moving on to the Senate or anyone from Congress moving on to the Presidency.
Career politicians are a curse in a republic, as are "dynasty" families of politicians like
the Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons. People should be going into government to serve the
people, not themselves and their families. It is public service, not a career job.
I will lower and revamp all government "perks" to reflect that. Future public servants can
expect a much humbler way of life in Washington.
I must stress that this is the primary governmental problem in the United States. The overall
primary problem is spiritual, but that can not be corrected by govermental action, only
individual action. Governmentally, however, too many people are
enfranchised. When buses drive around to pick up the totally ignorant and uneducated to get
their vote, the system is rotten. (I do believe that the voter registration drives of the
civil rights era, and the bussing to the polls that occurred then, was good and necessary,
but that was the exception and should not be the rule. I believe the Rev. Martin Luther King
and his contempories were great men. I cried when they killed him.)
We are all created
equal in the eyes of the Creator, but
we are in no way equal as individuals. The best and brightest should vote and lead. That
is simple common sense. There is a false sense of egalitarianism in the United States
where everyone is considered "equal". We are in no way equal except in the eyes of the
Creator and as regards our rights as citizens. With an IQ of 141, for instance, I am more
intelligent than 99% of the population. I don't want someone with an IQ of 70 and no
education telling us what we should do. On the other hand, I'd be slaughtered in a boxing
ring or on a football field. I am just not their equal. My talents are not in sports.
Unfortunately, because we are in a state of emergency, I see this as the only way
to stop our decline. Even if you won't vote for me because of all of this, please read on
because I address a lot of important issues you might want to incorporate into your own
political party.
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. (The following was my opinion before the economic
collapse. I hadn't realized the laws governing banks had been done away with by the Democrats, led by
Barney Frank, so people who could NOT afford a house, could, and agreed to by the Republicans who's lobbyists
wanted to make money. If they hadn't changed the law, we would not be here now. - "Because of what we have
learned about economic laws since then, and how we now control the economy, these laws are
now outdated.")
I believe this is still true, that we can control the economy, in fact we were doing pretty well until they relaxed the
financial regulations for the reasons just stated. All it takes is legal limits that stop greed from destroying us.
We put limits on greed by putting limits on risk. That's just good poker. I also 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 know there is a marketplace we can 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
need to be reviewed and relaxed wherever possible and this overflows into other areas,
especially personal freedom.
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 would be required to provide shelter, baths and food for the homeless
and poor. 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 the poor. Because of this,
some sort of welfare must be provided. I will leave the Welfare system in place as it is
now until that can be further assessed. As the changes I will make in the marriage laws will
reduce poverty as it reduces the number of single mothers, it might actually be possible to
raise welfare payments for the disabled, ill, and veterans.
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. 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 aquainted 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: Unconditonal divorce is destroying American society. Pat Schroeder, who initiated no-fault
divorce, was an ignorant, foolish, radical, feminist (I consider myself a conservative
feminist) and we are now all paying the price of
her self-serving stupidity. 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"
like Pat Schroeder 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 black households and fifty percent of hispanic 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 10 months after this law
is passed for all new single mothers. It is time to demand responsibility from all our citizens,
"GAY" MARRIAGE
#4b: 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 very good friends, and 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 diseases. The term "Gay" actually
means "promiscuous" and is why the homosexual poplulation 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. With him it was a choice, not a genetic inclination as it is for so
many people, 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
given certain benefits 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?
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, Syphylis). 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 childrens' 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,
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.
PUBLIC HEALTH
#5: In the same vein, we are facing 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
#6: The first things we need to do is end the employer-based health care system and end the health care
monopolies. Until these two things are done we are lost.
President Obama's health care reform will not be adequate for several reasons. The
primary reason is that it does not allow for tort reform or end the medical insurance monopolies.
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 frivilous 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 the best treatment of patients.
My health care program covers everyone, but we also need an end to the health insurance
monopolies, tort reform, an end to yearly or lifetime benefits, and the ability of insurance companies to drop
someone from coverage because they get sick. Once you buy health insurance, it should be unlimited. This would raise
premium costs, but tort reform and an end to the monopolies should balance out or reduce those costs so premiums
should actually drop.
Mandating health insurance is not an option as it is unconstitutional. We can not make it a condition of legal
citizenship to buy a product, including insurance.
There is a precedent for this in Social Security and Medicare, however, so the option would be national health insurance, just
like Social Security is a national annuity. This could be done at different levels and the Dutch model would be
something to consider.
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 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
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 re-imburse 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
would provide for these individuals and their families so they could continue to live
at a comfortable level.
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 at least 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 drug costs, which
we all know are much higher than in other countries. I understand these companies have to
have money for research and the 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 this research through grants to the companies. I believe if we switch to
this system that company stockholders will see to it that corporate executive income is
properly set to assure the research is done and the companies remain competitive, and the government can limit salaries as
a percent of net profit.
The government could also set
limits on corporate profit to ensure monies provided by the government for research is used for that purpose and
not to line the pockets of executives and employees. In other words,
I don't think the government will be limiting profits for the stockholders. It will just
be eliminating claims that the high cost of medications in the United States is because
they have to fund research. As most of you know, the pharmaceutical companies are already
promising billions to the government and are already providing assistance to those who can't afford
their medicines for public relations purposes.
This goes to show just how far their profits are out of line.
This sort of research work should also be easily verified and fraud is easily detected.
This would be funded through the Federal sales tax (I discuss dumping the IRS below). The
same amount of money will be spent in the economy because the people taking the medications
will now have more to spend. The old folks can go play some miniature golf!
About the only thing I like about the Obama plan is the new regulations on the insurance
industry forbidding the termination of benefits when people get ill and lifetime or annual
maximums. I believe pre-exisiting conditions have to be considered by the insurance
companies. 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.
Until everyone is insured, the insurance companies should be able to preclude a pre-exisitng condition from
coverage or charge a higher premium for that condition while covering other prosepective illnesses at the
regular rates.
Those with pre-existing conditions can use the Public Health Service and get the same care for those conditions
at a greatly reduced cost to the rest of us.
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 think, 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 tax man. No more taxing the fruits of a person's
labors, which, by the way, also used to be unconstitutional except in times of crisis.
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.
GLOBAL WARMING
#7: The Copenhagen summit was a total failure. We, the whole world, are not taking the actions necessary to avoid
a civilization ending catastrophe. The catastrophe is already happening for many people and it will very shortly
affect us all in horrible ways. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS! Do you understand this? DO YOU?
People worldwide, no matter where they live, are facing a climatic disaster of unprecedented proportions. YOUR CHILDREN
WILL DIE! GET IT? YOUR CHILDREN WILL NOT SURVIVE THIS, AND NEITHER WILL YOU! It doesn't matter where you live!
Human civilization will come to an end within 50 years if we do not mobilize the whole world and act NOW!
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.
The Arctic polar ice cap is going to 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. If elected, I will aggressively
begin to build CO2 scrubbers on my first day in office and will work extremely hard to
get the other industrialized and developing nations to do the same. I can't stress how big
a crisis this is and how immediate action is needed. No other candidate
realizes how big a disaster this is and how urgent action is needed. Coupled with the
economic collapse, major, accelerated, climate change could be a civilization-ending
event. We are in very desperate times and desperate action is needed which is why I
propose the radical solution I propose below.
On June 27th, 2008, our scientists announced that for the first time in human history the
Arctic ice will completely melt.The effects of climate change
of this total melt will be catastrophically dramatic as the cold air coming down from the
north is essential to our normal weather patterns. Without that cold air, created when the
the air is cooled by polar ice, normal frontal conditions cannot be formed over the continents of
the northern hemisphere. Winters will become dramatically warmer and ice packs, which most of
the population relies on for fresh water, will not form in the mountains. I cannot stress
enough how important this all is. We are facing drought, crop failure and famine on a
global scale.
During a Vice Presidential debate, Senator Biden said Global warming is
solely a man-made problem. He is wrong. Man is overheating a natural warming cycle. 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. 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.
It is absolutely essential that we begin constructing CO2 scrubbers, not today, but yesterday.
The technology is there, and it will only cost 1.5% of the world GNP, and we must DO IT NOW!
The carbon that is scrubbed should be stored so we can re-release it when, not if, when, the
climate changes too much in the cold direction.
Your worries about putting gas in your tank will seem like nothing compared to the worries
you will face in the next decades about putting food in your mouth. And this is if we just start
building them now. We must also begin a massive reforestation of the planet as trees are
great natural CO2 scrubbers. If elected, I will begin this process my very first day in office.
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
catasrophe 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 7,500 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.
As president, I would convene the best scientific minds to consider all of this and I would
follow their recommendations, including the building of CO2 scrubbers, which are needed
now.
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.
As president I would immediately begin massive reforestation wherever possible. 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. 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.
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, we must re-stock, too. The era of planned
obsolescence also needs to end until nanotechnology can provide us with unlimited resources.
Again 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.
FOREIGN POLICY
#8: I would completely revamp American foreign policy. We are 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. 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.
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 be dropping food packets from American planes on the
hungry and I would protect those planes with our fighters.
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, even if, God willing,
America is successful there.
If you are wondering, 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.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, THE PENAL SYSTEM
#9: 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. If I was convicted of robbery, I would much rather lose a hand than
spend ten years in our so-called "correctional facilities" which 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.
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)
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 more 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. 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 would 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.
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 would expand capital punishment to include dealers of deadly drugs
and those who were brutal in their crimes. People committing violent crimes in prison
would also be executed.
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.
I would, wherever possible, replace prison terms with fines and community service.
THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
#10: The educational system is a mess. I will re-institute paddling in the schools and see
to it that order is maintained. Most importantly, I will see to it that every student in
every school has access to the same books and computers and have the same teacher-to-student
ratio. I will adjust the Federal sales tax (I discuss dumping the income tax below)
to see that all our children have the very
best education. I will take "social education", other than traditional civics classes,
out of the schools and put it back in the
home, allowing more time for genuine education. To assure equality in funding, educational
expenses would be paid through the Federal sales tax, like all governmental functions. This
way all members of society are contributing in our children's education, which is
our society's future. This will take the tax burden off the homeowner and distribute the cost
throughout society, as it should be, since all members of society now benefit from
the education of its citizens.
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 will make it mandatory for all children to graduate
high school, without being passed along, by reinstituting 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.
I will also see to it that all children are required to not only learn English, but speak
it properly, so they have the necessary skills to be successful in the marketplace. Can
anyone picture Barak Obama speaking ebonics?
At the same time I will see to it that we have enough schools so our children
aren't getting home at 5PM or later to accomadate 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 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.
I will also 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, I will see to it that education is never
cut, nor funding for our public libraries. Education is the very cornerstone of all
civilized, prosperous, societies.
CAMPAIGN REFORM
#11: I will ban all lobby money. Candidates who gather
enough signatures will be allotted time on an equal basis on a government owned television
channel. They can do what they want on the Internet, as well, because money makes no difference
there. That will be it. No ads, no buttons, no hype, no bumper stickers, no bought rallies. Issues
only in a single forum so everyone gets to hear the same thing, not something custom tailored
to a specific group. This will operate at all levels of government. It is time to take the
bull 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.
"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 TAX
#12: I will also dump the income tax for most Americans and get rid of the IRS and replace it with
a graduated Federal sales tax.
Luxury items will be taxed at a higher level so the wealthy contribute more. The wealthiest will also be subject to income
tax so they do not absorb all the wealth, which is what is happening now. There will be
no sales tax on food, even if it is prepared, because the poor and the elderly often
rely on prepared foods. There will 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 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 guns to hunt squirrels. We have
guns in case our own government becomes oppressive. 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.
ABORTION
#13: 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 the 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 infant
exposure 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 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 brain, 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
#14: 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. 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 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.
IMMIGRATION
#15: 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 opportunites. 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 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.
SOCIAL SECURITY
#16: 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. 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 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.
CHURCH AND STATE
#17: 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.
IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN
#18:Both McCain and Obama wanted to increase our military presence in Afganistan. This is
a huge mistake. The surge that is winning in Iraq will not work in Afganistan/Pakistan.
I address this more fully below, but neither major party candidate had a grasp on
Afganistan/Pakistan, as was evident on the second debate on 10/7. Obama really scares me
here with his talk of invading Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country. This stance alone has
convinced me that Obama should not be president.
As for Iraq, I said earlier that if the situation hadn't stabilized and the troops
weren't home when I took
office, I would invite all the real leaders of the Iraqi people, both tribal and
religious. to Washington for a new Constitutional Convention that would establish an
Islamic Republic built by them around their culture, rather than around ours. I believe
even the convening of such a convention would bring about an immediate ceasefire except
for Al-Qaeda. I also believe it would unite the Iraqi's against Al-Qaeda. We could then
bring our troops home.
But now the Iraqi government has given us a timeline for departure and that should now be
our goal: not a deadline, but a goal. As big a mistake as the Iraq invasion was, it would
be a shame to quit with victory in sight. Iraq should also be picking up as much of
the financial burden as it can carry for the remainder of our stay,
Even if we improve the moral values of our entertainment industry and lives, Al-Qaeda will still be
a threat. They hate everyone else in the world. I would drop a bomb on any of them anywhere
I found them. I believe we had good cause to go into Afganistan to get the Taliban and it
is best to keep these people hiding in holes until we can find them. I also think we are
at the point where we could literally keep the air filled with enough cameras in unmanned
drones to finally locate them and hit them with a precision bomb.
I believe when we leave Iraq that the focus of the radical Muslim world will shift back
to Afganistan. There is no doubt in my mind that this will happen. Indeed, the Taliban is
already making a major comeback there. We need to go to the United Nations and our allies
and explain to them that America does not consider this to be its problem. It is a world
problem and the United States will withdraw its troops unless other nations contribute
enough so we can greatly reduce our presence there and be only a small part of a much
larger force. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban want us there to drain our treasury, as they did
to the Russians. We need to either greatly reduce our presence or get out and just keep
taking out new leaders with cruise missles as they arise.
(Comments Added 11/3/2009)
Obama is in a decison phase regarding Afganistan. The government is corrupt and the
Taliban hold 80% of the country.
The only way to bring modern civilization to that region of the world, not just
Afganistan, but the tribal areas if Pakistan, is through a massive infusion of troops
that occupy every town, village and hamlet.
Once that has been accomplished, those areas need to be provided with education, electricity,
the Internet and all other modern conveniences. If this is all done, in a generation, or two,
a stable, modern, society can be created and the occupation ended.
The only way to achieve this is to gain troop support from around the world, including
China and Russia. This seems highly unlikely, so I am sticking to my previous position that
Afganistan is a huge mistake. The war was not conducted properly from the beginning and
our point has been made. If we withdraw and the Taliban take back control we can always
go back to get the government if they decide to harbor Al-Qaeda again. It is easier and far
less expensive to take out nests of vipers when they appear than it is to try to occupy a
country for a long time when the people don't want you there.
GUANTANAMO AND POW's
#19: 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 conditon 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 have 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 committ 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
aquitted OJ, for instance. What if a similar jury aquitted Musharraf?
Domestic "terrorists" have to be tried with full rights because they are American citizens.
OIL AND GAS CRISIS
#20: We are facing an oil and gas crisis that will not end until we put enviornmental concerns
in their proper place and aggressively pursue the development of the Bakken oil reserves in
the Dakotas and Wisconsin, the Alaskan north slope, and the oil shales in Pennsylvania,
at the same time reserving these oil resources for American consumption only and forbidding
their sale on the international market. Each of these reserves contain more oil than in
Saudi Arabia and would free us completely from foreign oil purchases.
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 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 an even sharper rise in
the price of gas. Again, enviornmental
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 feasable, using solar or wind generated energy makes it very 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
#21: 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 has
to be renegotiated and "outsourcing" has to be severely restricted 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 really now "internatioanl" 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, email me and I will try to answer them.
|
