I received a letter from the Chairman of the Constitution Party in McDonald County:
Since the Constitution Party does not have anyone running for the 7th District, I am searching for someone to vote for in the General Election besides the Dems/Repubs. Please answer the following questions:
1. Are you Pro-Life with no exceptions?
There are some who would say I'm pro-choice, for two reasons:
First, I do not believe that abortion is a federal issue. I don't believe the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to give the federal government power to order states to prohibit abortion, which logically entails the power to rewrite all the criminal and civil codes of the states.
Second, if a pregnant woman is pressured to get an abortion by her abusive so-called "boyfriend," by her status-conscious parents, and by a greedy abortionist, I do not believe the woman should then be locked up in prison with a carjacker and a prostitute. Nor should she be executed.
Stopping Abortion begins by abolishing the government's compulsory secular education system.
But I do believe that abortion is murder in every case.
The unborn child is a human being from conception.
The unborn child is a "person" within the meaning of the law.
No person should be put to death because her father is a rapist, or has committed incest.
It is never necessary to intentionally kill a person to protect the life of the person's mother. Such a claim is a truly weak foundation for truly evil public policy.
2. Would you support Ron Paul's H.R. 1146 to get us out of the United Nations?
Yes, without having even looked at that bill, but knowing Ron Paul and knowing the United Nations.
3. Do you support Arizona's and Missouri's efforts to stem illegal immigration?
When I first considered running for office ten years ago, I had to decide whether I would run as a Libertarian or with the Constitution Party (because getting on the ballot without party support is nearly impossible). One of the reasons I chose the Libertarian Party is because I believe the position of the Constitution Party on immigration is both unChristian and unconstitutional.
Immigration is a major theme in the Bible. The Hebrews were oppressed by a corrupt government that would not allow them to emigrate. God gave them a mighty Exodus and told them that they should henceforth treat aliens with compassion, now that they know what it's like to have their rights denied in a foreign land.
The Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God, not the government. This means that Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans all have the same rights, because they are all created in His Image. This means that if I live on the Arizona/Mexico border, my neighbor on the Mexican side of my property has the same rights I do. I have the right to invite my Mexican neighbor onto my property without a government passport, visa, or other "documentation." My Mexican neighbor has the same right. I have the right to hire my Mexican neighbor to work in my home business.
The Constitution gives the U.S. federal government no power to interfere with the rights of property or any such contractual arrangements.
The Constitution gives the U.S. federal government no authority to "seal the border" or prevent me from allowing Mexicans on my property.
Funny that the "Constitution Party" doesn't know the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence criticized the British government for impeding immigration into America. The Statue of Liberty expresses the pro-immigration American view.
There is no such thing as an "illegal alien." If the government passed an unconstitutional law banning church attendance on Sunday, I would not speak of those in church on Sunday as "illegal worshipers."
Federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. If I raise my right hand toward heaven and take the oath of office, "so help me, God," I will observe the laws of God and the Constitution, and therefore oppose all federal restrictions on immigration.
Arizona does not have problems caused by hard-working immigrants who love their families and do quality work on construction sites, agricultural fields, restaurants, etc. Immigration is always good, economically speaking.
The problems in Arizona are caused by the federal government's unconstitutional "War on Drugs," which requires drugs to be sold by Mexican Drug Cartels rather than peaceful corporations in a Free Market. (The Constitution Party also supports this blatantly unconstitutional and harmful public policy.)
The problems are also caused by the fact that the federal government no longer respects private property. The destruction of property is seen in the government's redistribution of wealth through welfare programs (which claim to "benefit" immigrants, but merely enslave them and make them dependent on the government), the socialist curriculum of compulsory public schools (another so-called "benefit" for immigrants), and the fact that the federal government -- a notoriously bad landlord -- claims to own more than 50% of the state of Arizona.
.• champion private property,
.• denounce socialist schooling,
.• reject the "War on [some] Drugs," and
.• call for the selling off of unconstitutionally-held federal lands and other assets.
The Libertarian program is the true and complete answer to the problems erroneously and stereotypically blamed on [all] immigrants.
4. Does the Second Amendment (in your opinion) outline an Individual right to keep and bear arms? Should the Brady Bill be rescinded?
Yes to both questions, but both questions miss the Big Picture.
The "Big Picture" is that Americans are slaves, and the federal government is a tyranny which ought to be abolished, according to the Declaration of Independence. Americans "enjoy" a highly-restricted "right" to bear arms, but not anywhere near adequate to overthrow the Bush-Obama regime, which is the real purpose of the Second Amendment.
The Framers of the Second Amendment were not worried about the so-called "individual right" of hunters, gun collectors, and those concerned about home invaders, any more than they were worried that the federal government would seize the plows of farmers. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of individuals to form militias and overthrow tyrants.
Republicans often talk about being pro-Second Amendment, while giving us a children's right to guns, and expanding government tyranny ten times as rapidly. Republicans do not believe in any part of the Spirit of '76.
Even without the Second Amendment, the Constitution never enumerates any power of the federal government to even ask for a Yahoo email address from a suspicious fellow who wants to buy a truckload of bazookas and machine guns. (No Republican candidate would ever say such a thing.) Libertarians are far more consistent in their opposition to gun control (government control of your guns) than any other political party.
Although I oppose government control of guns, I repudiate the Second Amendment, in that I repudiate the "right" to use violence against "the powers that be."
5. Can the U.S. spend its way into prosperity with grants, bailouts, etc.
No. Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar confiscated from Americans, and after the poilticians and bureaucrats take their cut, leaves less than a dollar to "invest," which is never "invested" as wisely as the private sector would have invested it. Government is the enemy of prosperity.
Government spending by a bankrupt government is not just absurd, it is immoral, an act of theft.
6. Should Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac be abolished?
Yes. Or at least privatized.
7. Should we lease foreign aid?
The phrase "lease foreign aid" is not familiar to me. It brings to mind "Lend-Lease" (Public Law 77-11), which was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945.
I oppose all government-to-government foreign aid.
I especially oppose the aid the federal government gave Saddam Hussein and, before that, the Soviet Union. The U.S. federal government is the single largest and most dangerous financier of communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, terrorism -- and now, Islamic Theocracy -- on the planet.
If voters in Southwest Missouri repudiate the Republican candidate and elect the first Libertarian to the U.S. House of Representatives, this will be the most notable and talked-about election in the nation.
Kevin Craig will then have powerful opportunities to promote "Liberty Under God."
Members of the Constitution Party should support Kevin Craig in Missouri's 7th Congressional District. They should email their friends, tell their friends to email their friends, and by electing Kevin Craig, send a message to Washington D.C. as well as the rest of America.
Other members of the Constitution Party are invited to ask additional questions in the comments below.