Why are you running for the U.S. Congress?
I think our country is on the path to financial ruin. My retirement fund (and yours) will be worthless if we continue our current political ways. I realized that the federal government is not being run with honor and care. I, therefore, am stepping up to be a representative of the people. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides a very clear and limited set of things congress is supposed to do. I don’t see anyone else willing to keep the federal government within those limitations.
What are the most pressing problems facing our country that you hope to address as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives?
I hope to address our perpetual wars and the deficit spending we use to continue them. Fighting on the other side of the planet is the most expensive thing we could do as a nation. This helps our enemies justify their hatred of the U.S.A. and leads our country to financial insolvency. Let’s put the cost and logistical burden of attack on the enemy. The CIA knows what they’re up to, and we’ll be locked and loaded when our enemies make a move.
As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives what specifically would you do to help the country recover from the recession?
I would vote to reduce or eliminate the tax burden on businesses. Innovation and entrepreneurship are the path to prosperity. With onerous taxes waiting to drown business owners, we are pre-stifling our competitive edge in the world marketplace.
What do you think is the most egregious thing your Democratic opponent has done that you plan to oppose if elected in 2010?
Congressman Perlmutter has repeatedly voted to further the bankrupting of our nation. He voted “yes” on: TARP (HR1424), Stimulus (HR1), Wall St. bailout (HR3997), and raising the U.S. debt limit (HJR45). These all amount to cash-advances on the federal credit card. The cash is nice right when you get it from the ATM, but I worry about the bill coming due. I will vote only to allow federal spending on the few responsibilities outlined in the Constitution and leave the rest to the states and the free market.
Has the Republican Party failed to live up to its stated ideals in the past several years? If so, how?
I am sad to say that, yes, the Republican Party has failed to live up to its stated ideals. Fiscal restraint? Sorry, Republicans have been big spenders. Personal liberty? Sorry, Republicans gave us the USA PATRIOT act, which puts us all in jeopardy of being labeled an “enemy combatant” for questioning our government.
What do you bring to the job of a Representative that your primary opponents do not?
I bring the willingness to stop all deficit spending immediately. I think my primary opponents will claim to be fiscal conservatives, but continue deficit spending—claiming that it’s for a “good reason.” Spending money that we don’t have is bankrupting our nation. I operate in terms of math, science, and logic. I am not afraid to ruffle some feathers in my quest to save our country.
What should the federal government’s role be in reducing the cost of healthcare? What specific things would you propose or support? What kind of laws would you oppose?
The federal government has no role in healthcare. Cost reduction comes from competition, innovation, and healthy living. “Obama-care” is not about making people healthy. It is about making us customers of an insurance system. Insurance companies are free to set a price for their service, and we should be free to shop around or decline their offering entirely.
How are you going to deal with the federal government’s deficit spending? What specifically would you cut to balance the budget? Would you raise taxes?
I will vote against any deficit spending—no excuses, no exceptions. I will use my time at the microphone to chastise my colleagues for spending away our citizens’ prosperity. Taxes do not need to be raised. The federal government is already taking $2.4 trillion dollars per year. The problem is that they are spending more than $3.6 trillion!
Do you think there is a Constitutional right to abortion? Explain your answer? Would you vote to make abortion illegal? Would you have exceptions?
Abortion is tragic. It saddens me that we, as humans, even have such a concept in our minds. My research indicates that women have voluntarily aborted pregnancies as far back as 1000 B.C. or before. Apparently, it is something that humans do—regardless of laws or court decisions. The Constitution is very specific about the role of the federal government, and abortion is not an issue for Washington, D.C. to be making decisions on. I will say for sure that I would vote against having federal dollars–the people’s money–pay for a woman to have an abortion.
How would you deal with illegal immigration? What do you think the government should do with all the illegal immigrants living in this country?
Step one is to lock down the borders. If we have border checkpoints anywhere, it is hypocritical and asinine to have porous borders elsewhere. We have the technology to do this without building giant walls. It just takes manpower and a willingness to do away with the cheap, throw-away labor that helps unethical business owners keep their prices low. Beyond that, each state should take away the incentives for illegal immigrants to stick around–no welfare, no college aid, employment eligibility verification, etc.
Do you think gun ownership in this country is over-regulated or under-regulated? Explain your answer.
Over-regulated. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the above statement, I take the word “people” to mean the same people in “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” That says to me that each of us has the right to have and use a gun as we see fit—as long as it does not violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, or property. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to have mostly agreed with this view in the recent case, D.C. vs. Heller. I like this statement in the D.C. vs. Heller ruling, “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” The bottom line: Guns are not just for the hands of those working for the government.