for Congress 2012
Issues
We cannot win the war against the progressive liberal social agenda if all we do is play defense. My opponents do not have any plans or ideas to fix our country. My six new ideas are below. We could get all of these immediately and much more, if the Republicans will back me with my plan to enforce one sentence of the US Constitution. I detail the plan; it is the 6th new idea. If not, it would take some time but the first idea alone is worth sending me to Washington. My plan to have the officers removed is simple. Prior to the convening, I would speak to all of the Constitutional-minded members to gain their backing. I believe most, but not all Republicans would be with me (a few are lawyers). Then on day one, I would call a point of order (to stop all business). I would demand the chairman read Article 1, section 6, paragraph 2 and tell me if any person holding any office under the United Stated may serve in either House during his continuance in office. When he says that it says no ("no" is the only word I left out), I would move that the Sargent at Arms remove all who have taken an Oath of Office under the Judicial Branch but not revolked their Constitutional Oath before assuming their legislative office, as they are unconstitutionally in continuance of their Office while claiming membership in the House (or Senate). If the Chairman were a Republican, he could agree and the matter would be resolved. The "Officers would appeal and get a second. It would then be debated. I would then call a point of order that only non-judicial officers should be allowed to vote, as it is a direct conflict of interest for those judicial officers who are attempting to commit treason by their personal violation to be allowed to vote. The Republican Chairman could then rule in my favor and we could then have the non-officers decide the matter. On a final note, My father who was a two term Mayor of Auburn advised me of two things when I considered running for office. It was "Don't mention the lawyer thing because you will be a target of every unhappy lawyer. They will sue you into bankruptcy over anything or nothing at all to protect their power base. Remember, they have all of the power." and then he said, "Start with a lower office and work your way up through the local levels, then in 20 years or so you may be able to get a national office where you can bring this up.". I told him that "We don't have 20 years". The way I see it, it is now or probably never. I do not think our country will be a free country in 20 years. I don't know if I will be alive in 20 years. So, if you want to wait 20 or another 200 years to send someone with these ideas and plan to fix our country, send someone else. If I am elected, this is how I intend to get a country "Of the People, by the People and for the People" again! As you can tell, I am doing this for our children and our grandchildren, not me. Please vote for me! With your support we can win this war for us! 
I will vote conservative because I AM A true Conservative.
I am a Christian, in a country founded on Christian principles.
I am Pro Life - I have lived here since my conception - That is my entire life.
I am Pro Constitution - All of it.
I am Pro States' Rights - Stop the mandates and reduce the size and power of our Federal Government.
I am Pro Marriage - It is a cornerstone of our society that must be protected.
I believe Israel is our friend and should be treated as one.
I know that a strong defense is vital to our survival. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Illegal aliens are a burden upon our society. We must enforce our borders now. Airplane tickets are not near as expensive as having them here. Or incarcerating them. If we find illegal Mexicans here the federal government should deport them to Mexico's' Southern boarder. So they have plenty of time to reconsider illegally crossing the border again, as they walk back.
Veterans risked their lives to protect us and our country. I would honor that sacrifice.
Spending
We cannot spend our way out of debt. I will not do that. I don't want to go to Washington to cut deals and make compromises just to get a little bit of our money back. I want to go to STOP them from spending it and taking it from us in the first place! If we allow government to do what it has been doing, our children and grandchildren will suffer immeasurably! I want to stop the spending now and recall all of the unspent funds! We should be paying down our debt, not increasing it!
Fair Tax
I fully support switching to the "FAIR Tax" to replace the income tax. Right now, Income Tax is used for social engineering and payoffs for political favors. Nowhere does the constitution allow social engineering or political payoffs! I would co-sponsor and fight for this legislation. It would end the death tax, IRS, all of those tax regulations, and it would also bring back jobs and prosperity by allowing our companies to compete better globally -- restoring more jobs and prosperity again.
Term limits
I do not like term limits except for the Presidents'. However, something must be done to stop the nearly 95% incumbent rate. I was told that the courts ruled that you have a right to free speech but that you do not have a right to advertise (look at tobacco). So why not limit the amount you can spend in a primary and a general election? Make it so the new guys with new ideas can have a reasonable chance to be heard. By setting a limit based on some multiple of the poverty level. For example of the legality of this idea, Allen County judges are limited to $10,000.00 for their election expanses. We not just limit election expenses for all elected offices. So everyone can have an equal chance to be heard. You just keep adjusting this dollar amount until the voters are happy with the turnover rate. If this could not be accomplished I would happily vote for term limits. However, I think they should only have to set out one term. If the people wanted them back in again after setting out a term, they should be able to run again.
Health Care
"To provide for the general welfare"' as the Constitution states, does not mean to provide for an individual's welfare. So health care is a State issue (if the state chooses to provide it at all). It is not a Federal issue. However, requiring health insurance to provide portability could be a federal issue through the interstate commerce clause. To do this, Health Insurance could be structured like an HSA. If you don’t use it much, you should get a portable equity credit that could be used to make payments when you are out of work or transferred to another insurer -- or if you decide to switch insurance for any reason.
In the 1950's or 1960's we had a worker shortage. Pay was good and businesses offered health care and pensions to almost everyone, because they could afford it and they needed workers. Social Security was not depended upon, it was just a little supplemental income because almost everyone had a pension. If we had a worker shortage again, by allowing production again, we could have good insurance coverage and Social Security could be properly funded as it was intended.
State Bailouts
Soon States and cities will probably try to go bankrupt. Technically some already are. They will default on many of their debt payments. Luckily not Indiana. They will have to reorganize their debt and hurt their creditors. Many of those states have been getting bailed out by our government through stimulus spending but refuse to cut their budgets. This amounts to a federal tax on the responsible states. Indiana has been one of the best at controlling spending. We should not have to bail them out. I won't. Their creditors took the risk, not the people of Indiana! I believe a bailout is unconstitutional. They should just lose their credit rating and be unable to borrow -- that is all. This will force them to live within their budget. They should not be allowed to go into bankruptcy receivership, as this would amount to a Federal takeover of those States and would be unconstitutional.
Federal Department Of Education
According to the Constitution, education is to be promoted by the Federal Government, not provided. Congress can promote education without having the Department of Education. The parents, the state, and the local governments can provide it. It may have been passed only because of the Officers votes. If so, I would vote to have it annulled immediately. If not, this department is on the top of my list to close.
2nd Amendment
I am a gun owner and have my lifetime carry permit. It is a Constitutional Right that I refuse to lose!
1. New idea; Provisional Redactive Voting = Highlight voting. Clean out the junk first! End the corruption.
As A Reagan Republican, I disagreed with him on one major item. Line Item Veto. I felt that was too much power for one man or a political party to hold. The party out of power would never get anything. However this gave me the following idea that eliminates a lot of wasteful spending and ends most of the corruption in Washington.
Redaction means to edit, but I could not find a word that means "edit by removal only" - so I made a new word. Provisional "Redactive" Voting is "Voting to edit by removal of provisions". We as voters need to demand Provisional Redactive Voting in Congress, so we can know exactly what our representatives are voting for. This is crucial to our future! I want all legislators to be allowed to vote against any provision in a bill that they do not want, down to the sentence, so no unwanted legislation can get tagged or slipped into a bill without getting the due process it warrants. This would eliminate back room deals (politics), earmarks (payoffs) and compromises. Provisional Redactive Voting would put legislators back into the role they were elected to: representing the people. How would it work? When a bill is first brought to the floor, the legislators would be allowed to vote against the entire bill or any section, paragraph or sentence. This would be done electronically, they just "highlight" the “provisions” they do not want and press "enter" to vote for them to be removed from the bill. If any highlighted section, paragraph or sentence gets 50% of the redactive vote, that portion is removed immediately - before any debate! Only the portions remaining would be allowed to stay in the bill. This would clean the junk out of the bill! Then they could have debate and amendments would be allowed to repair any portions that legislators thought needed fixed. All amendments over one sentence would also get a Provisional Redactive Vote when first introduced or amended. If after a final vote, the amendment received a majority of the votes, it would be added to the bill. Once all amendments were finished, the entire bill would come to a final vote. This would have stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere", "Louisiana Purchase", and the Nebraska Medicare "bribes" in their tracks. Without all the backroom deals and "bribes", national health care would never have made it through the house or senate in the first place! It is the way to get a handle on spending and make government accountable to the people. We would be able to hold our representatives accountable for exactly how they voted! I will sponsor and fight for this legislation. If it didn't pass the first time, it would become a litmus test for the voters to use the next election. After all, who wouldn't want it? Only those that want the backroom deals, earmarks, bribes and wasteful spending. Then we would know who they are and voters could get them out.
2. New idea; Product Liability to make Fair trade.
Because of lawyers we cannot get Tort reform. Once we deal with the lawyers as described below, we will be able to get tort reform. Then we can fix our economy. To do this, we need limits on medical and product liability. I agree that manufacturers should be responsible and accountable for their products, but there should be reasonable limits on their liability. This ability to have unrestricted awards is destroying our country by driving our companies into bankruptcy, our manufacturing out of the country, and the cost of health care through the roof, while making our lawyers rich!
Remember the poison dog food, the lead paint on the children’s toys last summer? Our manufacturers would have been sued out of business. But those items were imported. All they had to do was recall the products. They could not be sued because they were out of our courts jurisdiction. This is not fair trade. Once we have liability limits, we need to require importers to carry the same amount of liability insurance on products that we require our U.S. manufacturers to be liable for. With this, we can put U.S. manufacturing back in the competitive market with other countries and bring jobs back to the United States. This will help make trade fair. I want to return prosperity to our country by making trade fair!
3. New idea; EPA for imports
Then we must regain control of the EPA by removing their authority to make regulations that are not approved by Congress. Congress should review past EPA regulations to actually authorize them as law -- so the people, not just the bureaucrats, have a say in making the laws that govern us. I will also push for certification of importers so that only importers that meet the same EPA minimum standards that our Federal EPA requires can import goods. If importers won’t keep the earth clean when making things for us, then we should not be buying those items from them. After all—their wind becomes the air we breathe and their sea waters circulate here too. We need to require imports to be certified that they meet US EPA manufacturing rules - so our manufacturers can compete fairly and return true prosperity to this country!
4. Reimbursements from criminals for extras!
A basic education is great - everyone should have a GED. But I think that if criminals attend college while incarcerated, they should have to pay back that expense as if it were a loan. Everyone else has to pay for college, why should commission of criminal activity give you free room and board and a free college education? I would sponsor and fight for this legislation.
5. Marriage
I know the Bible established the meaning of Marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Constitution restricts our government from establishing a religion. So changing the meaning of the words that have already been established by the Bible is establishing a religion and is unconstitutional. I would sponsor and fight for legislation that affirms and requires this principle.
Office holders Under the United States can not be legislators. This idea is not new. It was THE fundamental principal intended to be establish by the US Constitution and the founding fathers. The new idea is how to enforce this.
Our Founding Fathers specifically placed restrictions to keep the distinct separate branches of government divided. To protect future generations from having any one branch of government get control from the people. They also prohibited all Officers from within our government from being legislators. They did not want any government officers gaining the power to write the laws to enrich themselves or the branch of government they were placed under to serve. That is exactly why they wrote Article I, Section 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution. It states in the original text "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." So you cannot be appointed to any civil Office while in the Legislature; nor become a member of the Legislative Branch (House or Senate) while you continue to hold any office. Lawyers are Officers under the US Constitution. They take the "Constitutional Oath of Office" to support the Constitution of the United States. Just as the president, the congress, City Council, Police officers, Notary Public and all other officers that derive their power from government authority do. I am told that they hold nearly 56% of the Senate and nearly 34% of the House. They have done what the Founding Fathers were afraid would happen. The laws are being made "Of the Lawyers, by the Lawyers and for the Lawyers". I want our laws to be written "Of the People, for The People and By The People."
Now, lawsuits are driving prosperity from this country. The Lawyers are causing huge increases in medical costs and the cost of everything we buy. Manufacturers are being sued out of business and cannot compete. A few years ago I tried to get a Lawyer to represent me in prosecuting this, though he agreed with me. He said he would not because he knew he would be blackballed and never win a case again. I called the Indiana Bar Association requesting someone to represent me on this matter, but they could not think of anyone -- then they never got back with me. I wonder why..... The Judicial branch will not enforce this upon their fellow officers willingly. Hearing the case would be a conflict of interest, even for the US Supreme Court. We must elect those who will enforce this. It is a matter for the voter and the non-Judicial Legislative Office Holders to resolve. Believe me, I will fight to restore government to function the way it was intended as three separate and equal branches.
I have been told there have been cases heard by the Supreme Court that determined Lawyers are not "officers of the court". I am not claiming that they are. They are only called "Officers of the Courts" because their Oath of Office requires them to work in and under the Judicial or Court System. Their offices do not come from the Judicial Branch. Their Offices come from the Federal or State Government authority. So they are Government Officers with Governmental authority. The entire judicial branch is comprised of these Officers. Therefore, it is a conflict of interest for the Judiciary to hear a case on this matter. As they all have a vested interest in the outcome. In fact the entire Judiciary is required to have taken this same Constitutional Oath of Office until you get to the US Supreme court. As I understand it the US Supreme Court is the only place a non attorney may hold a Judicial Office as they do not need to interpret all laws, only the Constitution. Because the Senate has been composed of up to 70% officers at times and they are the ones that must confirm any nominations. Only a couple non-officers have ever been appointed. So the US Supreme court "officers" should recuse themselves from hearing the case - for their conflict of interest. Every US Supreme court seat is currently held by an Officer of the Court. So there would not be a quorum and no vote could be taken. So if there were any past rulings the officers could not have recused themselves as there has never been a quorum of non-officers on the US Supreme Court.
Many people point out that several of the founding fathers were lawyers and that some later served as legislators. I remind them that the founding fathers had received their Offices under the Articles Of Confederacy or the King of England prior to writing the Constitution that established the United States. So they were not Officers under the United States and therefore did not violate the constitution by serving. They were not stupid. They knew that they themselves were officers when they wrote it and yet they clearly wrote in plain simple language that no officers under the United States could serve as legislators while continuing to hold their office. They did this to protect future generations. To protect us.
People find it hard to believe that no-one has ever noticed this before. After all it has been happening for so long, maybe over 200 years. When I look back at my nearly 50 years in life, it seems like a very, very short amount of time. If no -one were looking for this, why would they have found this in 4 times my very short life? The founders were clear in their intention. They did not want any officers who derive any of their power from the government to also write the laws that govern the people. They wanted the people to write their own laws. It is possible that someone did notice before and tried to stop it in the courts, but failed. I have concluded the only way to stop it is to run for congress where I will have standing within the governmental body to address the issue.
6. New idea; The Plan that can end the "Office holders" from holding legislative seats and allow us to save our country quickly.
If the chairman were a Democrat, I would call a point of order (to stop all business). I would demand the chairman read Article 1, section 6, paragraph 2 and tell me if any person holding any office under the United Stated may serve in either House during his continuance in office. When he says that it says no ("no" is the only word I left out), I would move that the Sargent at Arms remove all who have taken an Oath of Office under the Judicial Branch but not revolked their Constitutional Oath before assuming their legislative office, as they are unconstitutionally in continuance of their Office while claiming membership in the House (or Senate). If he knew what I was talking about he would rule against me immediately. Myself or one of the constitutional members would then stand and appeal the decision of the chairman. One of the constitutional members would then second my appeal. This would allow it to come up for a vote after debate. At this time the chairperson would make his objections. I would make a second point of order demanding the parliamentarian make the determination if judicial officers should be allowed to vote, as it is a direct conflict of interest for judicial officers to vote on matters determining their own eligibility under the Constitution. That the remaining body must be the ones to make the determination as knowingly voting in the legislative body without having resigned their prior office would obviously be an act of treason under Article 1, section 6 Paragraph 2, if this or any future Congress were to find in my favor. So that makes this matter is for the non- judicial officers to decide. The Chairperson may then agree as he too may be determined to have committed treason by knowingly allowing them to unconstitutionally vote. If he does agree and the parliamentarian agrees, the non-officer Republicans can then decide. If not, it will come up every session until the chairpersons are Republicans. Then we will restore our country. This will bring the national spotlight upon these Attorneys corrupt practice and it will be recognised and ended in every State in US as well.
I think that most states have similar restrictions in their Constitutions; Indiana prohibits Officers that hold lucrative offices from being legislators. I don't know of a more lucrative office to hold. Look, if it is a conflict of interest to hold an office and vote on something directly pertaining to your business or profession, then it is a conflict of interest to vote on any law, when laws are your business and your profession. Talk about an ethics violation!
Once done what would this do for us? Well, there are around 150 attorneys in the House and another 56 in the Senate. If 95% of them are incumbents, then that is nearly 200 incumbents that will have to decide if they are going to keep their Office or be a Legislator on that day. I think most of them will keep their Bar license because they make more money as an Officer of the Courts. I don't really care, as long as they follow the constitution and end their conflict of interest. Every lawyer I ask agrees.
The following is what the Republican Party could do if they choose to once the "Officers of the Courts" situation has been resolved; The vast majority of these Officers are democrats. I have been told that all the Senate Officers are Democrat. So, if you think about it, Obamacare passed because of these Democrat legislators' votes. Once shown to be unlawfully holding office. Republicans could then move to nullify the officers’ prior votes on any liberal legislation we feel is damaging to our country. We could annul Obamacare, the Department of Education; anything passed because of those officers votes. Because of all the possible vacant seats, we may ALSO hold a super majority in the Senate and possibly the House and automatically override any veto until those seats are filled. But once filled their power structure would still have been turned on its ear. After the special elections and Governor appointments we may have the majority again. Almost the entire Senate Democrats would be freshmen. Unless of course, the "Officers of the Courts" choose to give up their "legal offices".
So then what? Once we again have a majority. I believe we could then see what laws were passed after subtracting these unconstitutional votes. If it did pass with 50% or more of the non-officer vote then it would still be a validly passed law. If it is determined that the non-officers did not pass the law, then it would need to be re-voted on to affirm that it is now a law made by the "people". Until the re-vote, the law would still be in force as that is already in the laws to prevent anarchy when people were found to have been unlawfully holding office.
I want to make sure all laws have been written "of the People, by the People and for the People" instead of being written "of the Lawyers, by the Lawyers and for the Lawyers".
Amendment's to the constitution would still stand and would have to be changed in the same way and manner as prescribed by the Constitution. If it was shown that at least half of the non-lawyers did not want the amendment, then I really think it should be reconsidered. But in an orderly way and "by the people".
After Obama is voted out, we can review the Senate confirmation votes for the Supreme Court. Any appointee that was appointed only because of the Officers votes could also be removed from office and the new Republican President would be able to appoint any that were not re-affirmed by a vote of the majority.
Many people think it couldn't possibly be that easy. They do not believe I can get officers removed that easy, that they won't just leave. But even if they find a way to ignore us or get around my plan to have them removed immediately-- it will be such a huge national issue that their days will be numbered by the voters. (They may get tarred and feathered by the voters before giving up!) This will destroy the political power base in Washington and give us the national recognition to get my previous new ideas enacted quickly to save our economy and end the corruption right away.
I would hope that the American Bar Association would recognize and acknowledge this oversite and save face with the American public. By demanding their officers resign their office of their legislate seat immediately. Then they would get credit for being honest and doing the ethically "right" thing for the American people.
The Republicans are normally split on issues that the American people are also split on. That is one thing that has hurt them in the past. It is the one thing that also gives me hope. That my fellow Republicans will use restraint when implementing all of the new found power they would have. I do not want the pendulum of change to be pushed past the true will of the people as the Democrats have done.
