Friday, February 19, 2010
Podcast Interview on Ifaq.us
The radio bloggers on ifaq.us were kind enough to have me on their podcast program. Go to the www.ifaq.us website and click on the February 17th 2010 podcast to hear my two hour co-host stint. I entered 15 minutes into the program.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Text of a recent interview
What is motivating you to run?
I believe that the Republicans and Democrats are failing to bring up the insolvency of the US Government and financial system and the reduction of our natural rights. The country is broke and a Depression is just beginning as the problems in the economy have been papered over rather than addressed. However, I believe both major political parties are unable to
address these issues because those that have profited from the mismanagement of the financial and government system are the same people who give the most money to our ruling political class in the form of campaign donations and other perks. I believe speaking about Bobby Scott’s closeness to corporations and financial institutions will give me an edge in his district that a Republican would not for fear of losing contributions.
What city in VA will your campaign be run out of?
Hampton
Ever run for elected office before? If so when, what
office?
No. I hope to encourage other citizens to do so, however.
Occupation: Consultant
Age: 33
1. Health care reform bill. Yes and No.
Yes, our current healthcare system has many problems but there are many free market solutions to resolve these difficulties that have been created in part by improper regulatory oversight and government control.
No, I do not support any of the lately debated healthcare reform proposals in either the House or Senate because these current proposals increase government control, increase cost of access to medical care, and actually decrease availability. Once the government can directly control the funds for something as necessary as medical care it will do all it can to reduce service in order to increase government profit that will be spent on pet
projects and patronage. It will also inherit a later justified control for behavior to keep medical costs down.
There are already many examples of Government using this self-assumed authority to justify protecting people from themselves. The British government passed such laws, saying that since the British government was footing the bill it had the right to take all actions necessary to reduce health care costs.
If elected to Congress I pledge to solve the primary cause of health care issues, which is more a problem of a supply and demand caused by government interference. I will seek legislation to legally allow citizens to easily transport pharmaceuticals from countries where they can be purchased for cheaper, remove roadblocks that make more numerous small
and middle sized pharmaceutical companies impossible, and allow insurers to be able to sell their services across state lines. Also, the US needs to reform malpractice suits. The Constitution has laid out the tools for addressing most of these issues, many of the root causes of our current difficulties has been a reinterpretation or ignoring of the Constitution.
2. Stimulus (aka: H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
No, and this is the main cause of why I am campaigning. This, coupled with other recent legislation, is the greatest transfer of wealth our nation has ever seen from the poor and middle classes to the elite and politically connected. I no longer believe that our country is based on free market Capitalism, and have not since October 3rd of 2008. Those in government call our system Capitalistic, but there is nothing free market about the restrictions we place on small and middle-sized businesses while giving large corporations and financial institutions bailouts, subsidies, and tax breaks their smaller competitors never see. Our financial system is controlled and manipulated by the US Government and influenced by failed, but politically connected businessmen. Our country is a Corporatist State.
If elected to Congress, I pledge to vote down any and all bailouts and subsidies. To paraphrase Gerald Celente, “This is America and you rise and fall on your own merit.”
3. War in Afghanistan. No.
Although I agree with our response to 9-11 and am proud to have participated in Operation Enduring Freedom, I am against further large scale involvement in Afghanistan for three reasons.
(1) Our economy is insolvent and we must take drastic measures to pay off our debts and maintain the strength of the US dollar. Large scale involvement is too costly.
(2) Our forces have done an admirable job, but our logistical system, maintenance upkeep, and combat training have all suffered because of the length of time our forces have been deployed. To keep our edge, we need to reconstitute our forces.
(3)The two regimes we are supporting, that of Karzai in Afghanistan and Zardari in Pakistan, have a history of corruption and have made several mistakes that have caused uprisings against their rule in the countries they control. Events in Pakistan have gotten out of Zardari's control, and there is now a humanitarian crisis developing along the
Afghani border.
I cannot support a large scale conflict against a population where the lines between an al-Queda terrorist and man fighting against a corrupt government are blurred.
If elected to Congress I pledge to seek the removal of the military from Afghanistan and Pakistan, except for small scale operations specifically targeted at terrorist cells planning operations against US citizens abroad or on US soil. Also, although I am not
supportive of Karzai or Zardari, I would not want to entirely abandon the Afghani people and would also be willing to see the US provide some assistance in developing a system of irrigation and farming to territory controlled and secured by Afghan warlords that treat their various ethnic groups humanely and treat our own aid workers with respect. Finally, there needs to be a more open system of selecting aid groups and construction companies, instead of us picking the same firms whose board of directors once seated a high ranking politician.
4. War in Iraq. No.
I am also a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was proud to finally see Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party removed from power, and am even more proud that Iraq has become a functional country. It will not have the internal stability of the United States. Stability closer to what we see in Jordan seems to be coming to fruition. Although corruption is
still an endemic problem, the Parliamentary system in Iraq is healthier than the kleptocracy that is Karzai's government in Afghanistan. I would want to see us leave Iraq for the following reasons:
(1) The insolvency of our financial system needs immediate attention. (2) I would not want to see the Iraqi government become complacent of US protection such as what has happened in Western Europe. Western Europe is so dependent upon US power that it was not able to respond to the crises in the former Yugoslavia and embroiled us into the conflict, and is also unable to stand up to Russian threats and power plays. It is time to leave Iraq so that our forces do not become a crutch, and so that we do not become involved in conflicts that the Iraqi government might start.
If elected to Congress I pledge to see the reduction of forces from Iraq except to provide security to our embassies.
5. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. No.
I have sympathy for victims of discrimination. However, this particular law focused on statute of limitation rather than on what is or isn’t actionable in court. Previously you had to find a violation within the last 180 days. Ledbetter waited years to sue, and the
courts ruled she waited too long; they did not rule on whether discrimination had occurred. However, the US government has a history of protecting companies that are politically connected while giving undo scrutiny to those who are opposed to actions the US government takes and therefore it cannot be trusted with another tool that allows it to act against a private business or individual.
For a recent comparison let us look at two businessmen, Tim Geithner and Joseph Nacchio. "Turbo Tax Timmy" Geithner was crucial in getting financial support for the first half of the bank bailouts, and afterwards was made Secretary of the Treasury despite the
finding during his confirmation hearing that he owed tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Compare this to Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest, who refused to provide the communication records of his customers to the Bush administration. He declared that such a request was against his customers’ rights to privacy. Shortly afterwards he was arrested after allegations from the SEC that he had practiced insider trading. This by the same SEC that missed Bernie Madoff despite numerous calls warning them of his fraud and has yet to investigate how Goldman Sachs made its profits before and during the current financial crisis.
If elected to Congress I would seek legislation that would better protect individuals from libel suits while finding a way to maintain the Constitutional access to the courts; so that people could speak against, post on blogs, or publish literature about companies that have ill-served them. I have greater trust in the citizenry punishing a company for
the mistreatment of its workers than I do a government composed of legislatures dependent on campaign contributions. I would also put pressure on the SEC to investigate and shut down companies for criminal activity regardless of their political connections.
I believe that the Republicans and Democrats are failing to bring up the insolvency of the US Government and financial system and the reduction of our natural rights. The country is broke and a Depression is just beginning as the problems in the economy have been papered over rather than addressed. However, I believe both major political parties are unable to
address these issues because those that have profited from the mismanagement of the financial and government system are the same people who give the most money to our ruling political class in the form of campaign donations and other perks. I believe speaking about Bobby Scott’s closeness to corporations and financial institutions will give me an edge in his district that a Republican would not for fear of losing contributions.
What city in VA will your campaign be run out of?
Hampton
Ever run for elected office before? If so when, what
office?
No. I hope to encourage other citizens to do so, however.
Occupation: Consultant
Age: 33
1. Health care reform bill. Yes and No.
Yes, our current healthcare system has many problems but there are many free market solutions to resolve these difficulties that have been created in part by improper regulatory oversight and government control.
No, I do not support any of the lately debated healthcare reform proposals in either the House or Senate because these current proposals increase government control, increase cost of access to medical care, and actually decrease availability. Once the government can directly control the funds for something as necessary as medical care it will do all it can to reduce service in order to increase government profit that will be spent on pet
projects and patronage. It will also inherit a later justified control for behavior to keep medical costs down.
There are already many examples of Government using this self-assumed authority to justify protecting people from themselves. The British government passed such laws, saying that since the British government was footing the bill it had the right to take all actions necessary to reduce health care costs.
If elected to Congress I pledge to solve the primary cause of health care issues, which is more a problem of a supply and demand caused by government interference. I will seek legislation to legally allow citizens to easily transport pharmaceuticals from countries where they can be purchased for cheaper, remove roadblocks that make more numerous small
and middle sized pharmaceutical companies impossible, and allow insurers to be able to sell their services across state lines. Also, the US needs to reform malpractice suits. The Constitution has laid out the tools for addressing most of these issues, many of the root causes of our current difficulties has been a reinterpretation or ignoring of the Constitution.
2. Stimulus (aka: H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
No, and this is the main cause of why I am campaigning. This, coupled with other recent legislation, is the greatest transfer of wealth our nation has ever seen from the poor and middle classes to the elite and politically connected. I no longer believe that our country is based on free market Capitalism, and have not since October 3rd of 2008. Those in government call our system Capitalistic, but there is nothing free market about the restrictions we place on small and middle-sized businesses while giving large corporations and financial institutions bailouts, subsidies, and tax breaks their smaller competitors never see. Our financial system is controlled and manipulated by the US Government and influenced by failed, but politically connected businessmen. Our country is a Corporatist State.
If elected to Congress, I pledge to vote down any and all bailouts and subsidies. To paraphrase Gerald Celente, “This is America and you rise and fall on your own merit.”
3. War in Afghanistan. No.
Although I agree with our response to 9-11 and am proud to have participated in Operation Enduring Freedom, I am against further large scale involvement in Afghanistan for three reasons.
(1) Our economy is insolvent and we must take drastic measures to pay off our debts and maintain the strength of the US dollar. Large scale involvement is too costly.
(2) Our forces have done an admirable job, but our logistical system, maintenance upkeep, and combat training have all suffered because of the length of time our forces have been deployed. To keep our edge, we need to reconstitute our forces.
(3)The two regimes we are supporting, that of Karzai in Afghanistan and Zardari in Pakistan, have a history of corruption and have made several mistakes that have caused uprisings against their rule in the countries they control. Events in Pakistan have gotten out of Zardari's control, and there is now a humanitarian crisis developing along the
Afghani border.
I cannot support a large scale conflict against a population where the lines between an al-Queda terrorist and man fighting against a corrupt government are blurred.
If elected to Congress I pledge to seek the removal of the military from Afghanistan and Pakistan, except for small scale operations specifically targeted at terrorist cells planning operations against US citizens abroad or on US soil. Also, although I am not
supportive of Karzai or Zardari, I would not want to entirely abandon the Afghani people and would also be willing to see the US provide some assistance in developing a system of irrigation and farming to territory controlled and secured by Afghan warlords that treat their various ethnic groups humanely and treat our own aid workers with respect. Finally, there needs to be a more open system of selecting aid groups and construction companies, instead of us picking the same firms whose board of directors once seated a high ranking politician.
4. War in Iraq. No.
I am also a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was proud to finally see Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party removed from power, and am even more proud that Iraq has become a functional country. It will not have the internal stability of the United States. Stability closer to what we see in Jordan seems to be coming to fruition. Although corruption is
still an endemic problem, the Parliamentary system in Iraq is healthier than the kleptocracy that is Karzai's government in Afghanistan. I would want to see us leave Iraq for the following reasons:
(1) The insolvency of our financial system needs immediate attention. (2) I would not want to see the Iraqi government become complacent of US protection such as what has happened in Western Europe. Western Europe is so dependent upon US power that it was not able to respond to the crises in the former Yugoslavia and embroiled us into the conflict, and is also unable to stand up to Russian threats and power plays. It is time to leave Iraq so that our forces do not become a crutch, and so that we do not become involved in conflicts that the Iraqi government might start.
If elected to Congress I pledge to see the reduction of forces from Iraq except to provide security to our embassies.
5. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. No.
I have sympathy for victims of discrimination. However, this particular law focused on statute of limitation rather than on what is or isn’t actionable in court. Previously you had to find a violation within the last 180 days. Ledbetter waited years to sue, and the
courts ruled she waited too long; they did not rule on whether discrimination had occurred. However, the US government has a history of protecting companies that are politically connected while giving undo scrutiny to those who are opposed to actions the US government takes and therefore it cannot be trusted with another tool that allows it to act against a private business or individual.
For a recent comparison let us look at two businessmen, Tim Geithner and Joseph Nacchio. "Turbo Tax Timmy" Geithner was crucial in getting financial support for the first half of the bank bailouts, and afterwards was made Secretary of the Treasury despite the
finding during his confirmation hearing that he owed tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Compare this to Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest, who refused to provide the communication records of his customers to the Bush administration. He declared that such a request was against his customers’ rights to privacy. Shortly afterwards he was arrested after allegations from the SEC that he had practiced insider trading. This by the same SEC that missed Bernie Madoff despite numerous calls warning them of his fraud and has yet to investigate how Goldman Sachs made its profits before and during the current financial crisis.
If elected to Congress I would seek legislation that would better protect individuals from libel suits while finding a way to maintain the Constitutional access to the courts; so that people could speak against, post on blogs, or publish literature about companies that have ill-served them. I have greater trust in the citizenry punishing a company for
the mistreatment of its workers than I do a government composed of legislatures dependent on campaign contributions. I would also put pressure on the SEC to investigate and shut down companies for criminal activity regardless of their political connections.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Attention on a Local Issue
The Hampton City Council has ignored a successful petition from the citizens of Hampton in regards to the citizens' attempts to keep Buckroe Beach open to the public. This is not about development, but about illegality on behalf of the city. You can read much about this in the Daily Press by doing a search for 'Buckroe'. I encourage this type of citizen action against illegal decisions by local governments. Below is the text of a press release from the petitioners against the city's action:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE
February 11, 2010
BUCKROE BEACH BAYFRONT PETITIONERS SUE CITY AND DEVELOPER
TO ENFORCE ZONING LAWS
The Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Committee, whose successful Petition forced City Council to repeal a zoning ordinance that would have allowed a housing project on the property, have invoked the protection of the law again in an effort to save the property.
The Committee, and its five representative members, filed a suit today in the Hampton Circuit Court against the City of Hampton and developer POH 2010 LLC, contending that the two are permitting the construction project to go forward in spite of zoning to the contrary.
The suit alleges that the City Council’s original rezoning ordinance No. 09-0238 was approved on June 10, 2010 for the express purposes of providing the necessary zoning predicate for the Parade of Homes construction development on the Buckroe open space.
The suit further contends that when over 7,300 Hampton voters signed a Petition under the City Charter seeking either the repeal of the Ordinance or a Referendum by the City’s voters, the Council relented on the development project and repealed the earlier zoning change.
According to the suit, notwithstanding the Council’s restoration of the original zoning classification for the Buckroe Beach property which does not allow such a housing development as proposed by the developer, the developer is moving forward with such plans with the City’s express permission and consent.
The suit seeks a ruling from the Court that the City’s and the developer’s actions are in violation of the existing zoning laws and are therefore unauthorized and unlawful.
The Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Committee vows to pursue its fight to protect this last piece of Buckroe bayfront open space as far as the law permits. The Committee stresses that not only is the preservation of environmentally critical open space at issue, but in light of the City’s actions in the face of the Council’s reversal of the zoning, the very integrity of the Hampton City government and its fidelity to its citizens is implicated as well.
For further questions, or information, regarding the suit, please contact the Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Committee’s litigation counsel, Andrew M. Sacks, of Sacks & Sacks in Norfolk, at 757-650-6000 (cell) or 757-623-2753 (office).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE
February 11, 2010
BUCKROE BEACH BAYFRONT PETITIONERS SUE CITY AND DEVELOPER
TO ENFORCE ZONING LAWS
The Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Committee, whose successful Petition forced City Council to repeal a zoning ordinance that would have allowed a housing project on the property, have invoked the protection of the law again in an effort to save the property.
The Committee, and its five representative members, filed a suit today in the Hampton Circuit Court against the City of Hampton and developer POH 2010 LLC, contending that the two are permitting the construction project to go forward in spite of zoning to the contrary.
The suit alleges that the City Council’s original rezoning ordinance No. 09-0238 was approved on June 10, 2010 for the express purposes of providing the necessary zoning predicate for the Parade of Homes construction development on the Buckroe open space.
The suit further contends that when over 7,300 Hampton voters signed a Petition under the City Charter seeking either the repeal of the Ordinance or a Referendum by the City’s voters, the Council relented on the development project and repealed the earlier zoning change.
According to the suit, notwithstanding the Council’s restoration of the original zoning classification for the Buckroe Beach property which does not allow such a housing development as proposed by the developer, the developer is moving forward with such plans with the City’s express permission and consent.
The suit seeks a ruling from the Court that the City’s and the developer’s actions are in violation of the existing zoning laws and are therefore unauthorized and unlawful.
The Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Committee vows to pursue its fight to protect this last piece of Buckroe bayfront open space as far as the law permits. The Committee stresses that not only is the preservation of environmentally critical open space at issue, but in light of the City’s actions in the face of the Council’s reversal of the zoning, the very integrity of the Hampton City government and its fidelity to its citizens is implicated as well.
For further questions, or information, regarding the suit, please contact the Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Committee’s litigation counsel, Andrew M. Sacks, of Sacks & Sacks in Norfolk, at 757-650-6000 (cell) or 757-623-2753 (office).
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
