Thursday, October 20, 2016

last nights debate, third party responses, and fact checking, Part 1

So last night was the final debate before the election. For those that are interested, I am posting segments of it here, along with responses from third party candidates as the debate occurred.(Included are Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan Mcmullin, and Darrell Castle, as they had concurrent responses on twitter as the debate occurred) I will try to keep most of my commentary to a minimum in this post, but will do some relevant fact checking so you don't have to.

Part 1: SCOTUS and the constitution, Second Amendment, Abortion







SCOTUS and Constitutional interpretation, 3rd party responses:








SCOTUS and the Constitution, some commentary and fact checks:

Trump is using fear tactics regarding the 2nd amendment here, yet has made several anti 2A statements in the past, including recent and continued support of "no fly no buy", a violation of the 2nd and 5th amendments. He talks a decent game on constitutional issues, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. See my previous discussion Donald Trump vs the Constitution. 

Second Amendment and Gun Rights, 3rd party responses

 






Commentary and Fact Checks:

Hillary loves to throw around that 33,000 a year statistic. But it's a misrepresentation, and it's a deceptive use of statistics.

Comprehensive background checks...so, kinda a system like this?
But those loopholes! I can go online and just buy a gun and avoid all that! No...no you can't. And the gun show loophole? Again, it's not quite what Clinton and others would have you think it is.

Would have also liked to see the moderator ask Trump about his change of mind regarding an assault weapons ban, which before running for office he supported.

As to Trump's comment regarding judges and the second amendment, if you appoint strict constitutionalist judges, does that point need to be clarified? Isn't it included?

Abortion issues, 3rd party responses:










  Fact checks and commentary:

Evan McMullin actually made one of my points for me above, that Donald Trump is not consistently pro life and is not dependable on the issue.

My main takeaway from this portion was how little discussion there was of the implications of the 10th amendment here, and of state laws on the matter. Trump did mention that if Roe vs Wade were overturned it would go to the states, but that was the extent of the conversation. However, coming at it from a constitutional perspective, it is in fact a state issue.

Also, as Johnson pointed out above, Roe vs Wade is not the law of the land regarding abortion, but Casey vs Planned Parenthood. Under Casey vs Planned Parenthood, Hillary's justifications for late term abortions are invalid.

Final note, on the issue of abortion rights, Clinton is rabidly all about individual rights and how the government shouldn't be involved, an argument I can to a degree understand, if she consistently applied it on other positions. But she doesn't, and in this instance, it still doesn't apply, because under the 10th amendment, states can still regulate it, the federal government cannot.

Final comment from me, I have a breakdown of each candidates positions and backgrounds on my blog already if you'd like to check it out


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Donald Trump and term limits

So the Donald has apparently decided to push for term limits. Now, I'm not going to criticize that in itself, I agree that we have far to many in congress who treat it as a career rather than a public service, and term limits would help address that. Ideally, people would stop voting for corrupt incumbents, but that doesn't really seem to happen.

No, my issue with Trump is, as usual, his inconsistency.




And, according to a December 2015 post from termlimits.org, while many of his at the time opponents in the GOP primaries were strong supporters, or supported term limits, Trump took no stance, Suddenly, he now favors the idea like it was his wonderful plan to pander favor from gullible voters with short memories. But like so many other sudden switches, can he be trusted to actually follow through? Or is he grasping at any possible lifeline to bamboozle enough of the electorate to get into power.

If you support term limits, I encourage you to check another candidate who has consistently pushed for the idea, and isn't just advocating it now to pander for your vote, Gary Johnson was talking term limits as early as 2001, Bill Weld is on the record supporting them as far back as 1996. The Johnson Weld campaign signed the termlimits.org pledge early on.

If this is an issue important to you, then you decide, support an honest, consistent candidate, or an unpredictable, disingenuous candidate that may or may not actually follow through, and has actively criticized and called term limits "terrible".
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, October 17, 2016

Where do they stand: Immigration

Immigration is perhaps one of the issues that has received more attention than others in this election cycle, but still not to the full extent that it perhaps should, and it has still been sidelined by the personality politics and nonsense scandals. When it has received attention, it's mostly been an argument over whether or not Trump's policy ideas are racist or not, without much actual discussion of the issues themselves. So first, my view in the interest of full disclosure. I would consider myself a moderate in regards to immigration. We definitely need to reform our current system, but I am not firmly decided what the best answer is. I think it's an issue we as a nation need to take a serious look at and discuss as a whole.

Gary Johnson

Of note, Gary Johnson was a two term governor of a border state, and arguably in regards to immigration issues, has perhaps the most practical experience. 

From his campaign website:
"Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society. Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it."



From looking further on ontheissues, he advocates a 2 year period for illegal immigrants to go through the process of becoming legal, and a "1 strike, you're out" rule, essentially, if the terms of their process are violated, they are done. I think his focus on reforming the broken process is a good step towards a reasonable and fair immigration policy. I also think it is good to see he is not advocating total open borders, as some of my fellow libertarians do indeed advocate, but reasonable security checks. In my view this is a sound middle of the road plan to address concerns from all sides and develop a fair process, and rates an A.

Chris Keniston

In his personal platform, he references the VPA platform on the issue. The party platform has a 10 point plan to address immigration:

1. We must secure all borders and international ports of entry to properly protect our nation from potential threats foreign and domestic. 
2. We must enforce immigration laws, by supporting legislation that will provide for Border State agencies to coordinate the implementation and enforcement of national immigration laws, including directing resources to the Border States to fund the National Guard or Militia to work with National Border Security Agencies. 
3. All illegal and undocumented immigrants must report to a local immigration center and get registered with a firm deadline for compliance. 
         a. Any illegal or undocumented immigrants that fail to register are subject to immediate and permanent deportation. 
        b. All registered immigrants with any felony or State level misdemeanor conviction, even if later cleared or expunged by any method, shall immediately face permanent deportation. 
       c. All illegal or undocumented immigrants found trying to illegally enter the United States after the registration deadline is subject to immediate and permanent deportation. 
       d. Any illegal immigrant under the age of 18 may be represented by an attorney prior to facing deportation, paid for by country of origin, including withholding funds from foreign aid. 
4. The Veterans Party of America supports the hiring of ICE Agents at an accelerated rate to meet the National and Border State demands of at least 60,000 Border Patrol agents. This increase in Border security shall be paid for by exact budget stipulations in the Home Land Security funding. 
5. All illegal or undocumented immigrants will be treated humanely, respectfully, with critical medical care as required and then returned to country of origin. The country of origin shall be responsible for all expenses, medical or otherwise. These funds shall be deducted from any foreign aid those countries of origin may receive. 
6. Any immigrants properly documented by the end of the registration deadline, but are not prepared for filing for permanent residency status must acquire a sponsor, learn a sufficient level of the English language for public safety, becoming proficient in the common language, and shall be given a grace period to complete the application process, based on each individual applicant’s needs, not to exceed 5 years, without extensions. 
7. All documented immigrants between the ages of 6 & 18, depending on State law, must be registered in and regularly attend school. 
8. No illegal immigrants under this provision will be eligible for permanent status ahead of legal immigrants already engaged in the application process. 
9. All documented immigrants over 18, residing in the United States, seeking permanent status must be employed with a tax identification number, or be a full time student. 
10. Any corporations, conducting business in the United States found to hire illegal immigrants, upon conviction shall be fined 1 million dollars or 51% of their business holding, whichever is less. We need to make it easier for businesses to block sponsor immigrant workers (VISA) from countries of origin, through US Embassies and Consulates, provided the corporation can document an insufficient labor source already existing in the particular area.



He also calls for a permanent moratorium on deportation of any law abiding immigrant awaiting citizenship by marriage, immediate citizenship for completion of military service, and for the involvement of state governments in approaching the issue, as well as the possibility of employers "sponsoring" immigrants, which could be an interesting approach to a middle ground on labor needs vs immigration policy.

Overall an interesting and thought provoking approach. Some concerns I have include the possible use of National Guard in border security, while I understand the idea, I'm not sure that it is one I agree entirely with.  Also, the criminal conviction one, felony I get, even most misdemeanors I get, but even if it is cleared or expunged? Does this include minor traffic violations? I'd say, overall, a novel and interesting approach, I'd give it an A.

Evan McMullin

From his website:
"The path to reform begins with securing our borders. Once they are secured, there should be a process of earned legalization for the illegal immigrants who are already here. There is simply no efficient way to deport 11 million individuals; doing so would break apart families and likely cost $100 billion. Furthermore, legalization is not amnesty. While addressing illegal immigration, it is vital to remember that legal immigration is one of America’s greatest strengths. Immigrants and their children have a long record of hard work, starting businesses, and creating jobs. Still, we need to reform the legal immigration system so that it prioritizes American interests and security, including the protection of workers from low-wage, low-skill competition."
"Deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is simply not practical. It would likely cost more than $100 billion and force the federal government to act in an intrusive manner that would violate the privacy of both citizens and legal residents. Deportation would also break up families, hurting children who are not responsible for their parents’ actions. Criminals, however, would still be subject to deportation. 
The first step toward earning legal status is for all those who are here illegally to come forward and register themselves. Next they would pay an application fee and a fine, undergo a background check, and demonstrate competence in English. If they do those things, they would get a temporary work and residence permit, but would not be eligible for welfare or entitlement programs. If they obey the law and pay their taxes for several years, they could apply for permanent residency." 
Again, a good middle of the road approach that seeks to fix our current broken system, yet still encourage those who want to work to come work. My only issue here is the low wage competition bit, a "taking our jobs" toss I guess, but an inaccurate one.  And here's another source. Overall, good, but some issues, B+

Jill Stein

From her website:
Support immigrants’ rights. Create a welcoming path to citizenship for immigrants. 
Halt deportations and detentions of law-abiding undocumented immigrants., including the shameful practice of night raids being used to terrorize refugee families. 
Improve economic and social conditions abroad to reduce the flow of immigrant refugees, in part by repealing NAFTA, ending the failed drug wars, and halting CIA and military interventions against democratically elected governments. 
Demilitarize border crossings throughout North America. 
And more of the same on ontheissues


Basically, as I understand it, criminals are bad and have to go, the rest can stay, as citizens. Also, trade is bad, not really sure how that relates to immigration...but sure. I do agree with her on ending the drug war, and ending meddling that creates refugee situations, although I think we would still have an immigration issue without those causes. As to demilitarizing our borders...well, I wouldn't say they are "militarized" currently, and am curious what she would have in their place regarding border security. Some good ideas and thoughts, and I like her statement about treating people like human beings. However, I think we need to take a stronger stance on border security and immigration than she is suggesting. Yes these are human beings and our immigration system definitely needs to be reformed, but flinging the doors open isn't the answer either. I'm going with a C here

Darrell Castle

From the Constitution Party website
"America’s best interests are not being put first in immigration reform debates. Castle also observed, “There is a current pathway to citizenship, it is called ‘legal immigration.’ The Constitution Party supports a sensible legal immigration system in the United States. However, this support should not be piggybacked, combined or confused with illegal immigration. We support and demand legislation–a legal immigration system that complements and promotes the best for the United States of America and its citizenry, one that denies a pathway for those who have successfully, many with full pre-meditation, ignored our rule of law.” Frank Fluckiger, Chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee added, “The Constitution Party supports lawful solutions, including initiatives, such as ‘attrition thru enforcement’ programs, as a means to address illegal immigration — not a free pass to reward criminal behavior. We support programs, such as E-Verify, to put millions of Americans back to work. We must have strict enforcement and compliance of any and all common sense visa programs, and we demand security of our borders and ports to ensure that illegal immigration is a diminishing problem for the future.”
And from a September 2016 interview with "The New American"
"I believe that immigration in all its forms should be stopped until we can vet immigrants properly and our borders are under control. We can’t be allowing people with terrorist ties, or who are carrying dangerous communicable diseases, to enter our country unchecked. But once we have regained control of our borders and the flow of immigrants, we can admit as many as we choose, in a controlled and lawful manner."
So basically, stop all immigration entirely, for an undefined period of time, and then figure things out as we go along....sure...because terrorism....D

Donald Trump

From his website:
Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First 
1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall. 
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country. 
3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets. 
4. End sanctuary cities. 
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced - we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. 
6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place. 
7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported. 
8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports. 
9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants. 
10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.



There's really a ton I could put here, let's be honest, this is one of the foundations of his campaign. The biggest issues, the wall, it's impractical, it's an exaggerated response, and Mexico certainly isn't going to pay for it. I could go on and on, but I'm going to let The Donald grade himself on this one. F

Hillary Clinton

From her website:
Introduce comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy. 
End the three- and 10-year bars. The three- and 10-year bars force families—especially those whose members have different citizenship or immigration statuses—into a heartbreaking dilemma: remain in the shadows, or pursue a green card by leaving the country and loved ones behind. 
Defend President Obama’s executive actions—known as DACA and DAPA—against partisan attacks. The Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision on DAPA was a heartbreaking reminder of how high the stakes are in this election. Hillary believes DAPA is squarely within the president’s authority and won’t stop fighting until we see it through. The estimated 5 million people eligible for DAPA—including DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents—should be protected under the executive actions. 
Do everything possible under the law to protect families. If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases—such as parents of DREAMers, those with a history of service and contribution to their communities, or those who experience extreme labor violations—to make their case and be eligible for deferred action. 
Enforce immigration laws humanely. Immigration enforcement must be humane, targeted, and effective. Hillary will focus resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety, and ensure refugees who seek asylum in the U.S. have a fair chance to tell their stories. 
End family detention and close private immigration detention centers. Hillary will end family detention for parents and children who arrive at our border in desperate situations and close private immigrant detention centers. 
Expand access to affordable health care to all families. We should let families—regardless of immigration status—buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Families who want to purchase health insurance should be able to do so. 
Promote naturalization. Hillary will work to expand fee waivers to alleviate naturalization costs, increase access to language programs to encourage English proficiency, and increase outreach and education to help more people navigate the process. Support immigrant integration. Hillary will create a national Office of Immigrant Affairs, support affordable integration services through $15 million in new grant funding for community navigators and similar organizations, and significantly increase federal resources for adult English language education and citizenship education.

As seems to be a trend here...Hillary is rather inconsistent however:



As to her current positions...the continued willingness to abuse executive orders is concerning, she clearly has little respect for constitutional separation of powers...the rest of what she currently has to say, I can at least semi get behind, or, to put it more accurately, I think is a workable starting place. But she's been on the record multiple times, as FLOTUS and as Senator, with very different positions. She's inconsistent and seems to hope that if she panders to emotion, the people will forget. For that pandering and inconsistency, solid F
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Where do they stand: Abortion

As a nod to Gary Johnson addressing Liberty University earlier today, and in response to many of my Christian friends asking my thoughts or where different candidates may land on the issue, todays post will be a comparison of stances on abortion and related issues (stem cell research, birth control, etc)

As you may have noticed in my first comparison post, I gave my own rating of each candidate, and ordered them by that rating. I also explained my personal perspective and how I arrived at this rating. This issue is a more difficult one for me to rate quite as cut and dry, but I will do my best to do so. First, let me explain why. I do believe that life begins at conception, and that to intervene to end that life (abortion) is murder. I also believe that, just as laws regarding murder are defined on the state, not the federal level, abortion laws should do the same. In that regard, a federal position on abortion is a difficult one to defend on either side from a legal and constitutional view, however, very understandable from a moral view. It is certainly preferable to err towards the side of life. That said, in my ranking of candidates, I will be focusing on the federal level, overall implications, and doing my best to remove the emotional aspect from what is a very emotional issue. It is very easy on an issue like this to focus in on the emotional, and in the case of life, certainly not wrong to do so, however, we must delve past the rhetoric and emotion to the facts and the substance of the issue.

Chris Keniston

From his platform, he makes it pretty clear that, constitutionally, abortion and other social issues do not fall within the constitutional authority of the president. I encourage you to read it for yourself, particularly the section relevant to social issues if this is a deciding factor for you. I will provide a few excerpts here to better show his position on the issue.

"Constitutionally, the President's only authority to make decisions about social issues occurs when laws affecting them are proposed by the United States Congress. Only then does a President have authority to veto that bill or authorize it into law. Once signed into law, a President then has authority to direct the Executive Departments and Agencies to enforce that new law."
"LGBT rights, abortion and other legitimate social issues are not specifically addressed by the Constitution. Therefore, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, all such matters are solely reserved for the People or the states to decide." (Emphasis added)
"For anyone deeply concerned about my personal positions on LGBT rights, abortion or any other divisive social issue... I have given you my vow as an elected representative. I will support and defend the Constitution and your personal Liberty. When I swear the Oath of Office upon the Bible, that oath will be a binding covenant between me, you and God. I expect that we will all hold me accountable to it." (Emphasis added)
"Personally, I am strongly opposed to abortion as a means of birth control. If anyone in my life were considering one, I would urge them to make any other decision and honor the life entrusted to them. But I would respect their decision. Because it's ultimately their decision to answer for. Additionally, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that abortion is a Constitutionally protected practice. Short of a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice, an infringement of Liberty that I would never support, it really doesn't matter how I feel about it personally. That said, I am vehemently opposed to Planned Parenthood providing abortions and selling fetal tissue, aborted fetuses and potentially terminating live births for profit without specifically informing the mothers of their activities. I cannot see those actions as anything but criminal, and grounds for complete termination of federal funding. The government should not provide funding for any such heinous "for profit" endeavor."
So, basically, Keniston would oppose federal funding for abortion services such as Planned Parenthood, and would consider legislation on social issues such as abortion to be constitutionally a state and individual issue, not federal. He would support and appoint strict constitutionalist judges who would likely hold the same view. To better explain it, or my interpretation of it, he is a pro life candidate who believes it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. I would say that on this issue, myself and Keniston hold nearly identical views. Solid A+

Gary Johnson

There's actually a fair amount of material here to choose from. We'll start with the statement on his campaign website:
"Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer. On a personal level, Gary Johnson believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. As Governor, he supported efforts to ban late-term abortions. However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being and that the government should not be in the business of second guessing these difficult decisions. Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to prosecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington, or anywhere else."
In Johnson's case, we can also look at his positions as governor, and statements made in the past. A helpful resource here is ontheissues.

We see that when he ran in 2012, he felt it was a state and individual issue, and it seems that he has remained consistent there. We also see that he opposed federal funding for programs relating to abortion, such as Planned Parenthood or stem cell research. Again, still consistent. Also of note, as governor of New Mexico, he supported a ban on partial birth abortions, supported requiring parental notification and consent, and supported required counseling. Also of relevance, today addressing Liberty University, he was specifically asked about abortion, and his SCOTUS picks regarding same. I thought he gave a consistent answer, and regarding SCOTUS picks, he stated that Justice Thomas would be a fair example of the type of judge he would pick.The relevant section is at about the 30:00 mark.


From a purely pro life view, this type of libertarian constitutionalist approach is a good one, as it allows freedom on the state level to address issues without federal overreach. I think he has a respectable position on the issue, but could articulate it more clearly. He gets an A

Darrell Castle

From his platform:
"If you’ve ever made a statement that you will never vote for someone who is not pro-life, or who supports abortion, and if you are really serious about that statement, then you only have one choice in this election. I am the only candidate of any party that is 100% pro-life or even close to it. Unlike Hillary Clinton who recently said, “unborn persons have no constitutional rights”, I know that all “persons” have the right to life and both the 5th and 14th amendments confirm that position. I also know, as does Mrs. Clinton in the deep recesses of her heart, that those waiting in their mother’s womb to be born are in fact persons. There are many things that a Constitutional President could do about abortion but I will give you a couple. 
1. Veto and refuse to spend every penny of funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. 
2. Recommend to Congress, and work to convince Congress, to take away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over such matters."
 The first promise is quite inline with other constitutional approaches listed here. The second one is a bit more unclear. While abortion, in a strict constitutional sense, is not a federal issue, I am not sure what he means regarding "taking away....jurisdiction"  It is unclear if he would respect state decisions on the matter and the 10th amendment distinction between state and federal authority. I respect his firm stance on the humanity of the unborn, but he needs to clarify his position regarding where the constitutional authority on the issue is. He gets a B+

Evan McMullin

From his campaign website: 
"Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity. From conception to death - and any time in between - life is precious and we have a responsibility to protect it. A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person - it undermines the dignity of mother and child alike. Americans can and should work together to increase support and resources to reduce unintended pregnancies and encourage adoption, even if they may have different opinions on abortion rights"
One can take from this that he is pro-life, and believes life begins at conception. One can also surmise that he would end tax subsidy of abortion services such as Planned Parenthood. However, any further details he seems pretty vague on. The above quote is the entire section on life on his site. So, will he seek a federal ban? Will he work with states to meet his goals? He talks about Americans with differing views working together, this is a nice sentiment, but a vague one. I can't tell if he's being vague to try to attract pro life voters without pissing off pro choice voters, or what he's really aiming at here. It's all in all a typical Republican nod to "church" without really saying much at all. He gets a B.

Donald Trump.

Where to begin...Ok, there isn't a specific section regarding abortion on his campaign site. However, he has been all over the map on abortion. Pro choice, pro life, support Planned Parenthood, defund Planned Parenthood... He has, at least since he began actively running in 2015, remained semi consistent on removing taxpayer funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion services. But he can't seem to make a reliable stance on the issue as a whole, and it would seem to me that whatever side of this particular issue you may land on, he is an unknown as to what position he will decide is his final answer. Due to that unreliability, Trump gets a C-

Jill Stein

Although she doesn't have a specific statement regarding abortion itself on her website, she does discuss healthcare as a right, and under this, she includes
"Allow full access to contraceptive and reproductive care."
And
 " Expand women's access to 'morning after' contraception by lifting the Obama Administration's ban."
Looking over her past stances on the matter, she has pretty consistently kept this view, and supports federal funding of stem cell research.

While I admire her consistency and conviction, I have nothing in common with it from either a pro-life or a constitutional perspective. Her positions are a clear violation of the 10th amendment of the constitution. From this view, I would give her an F, however, due to the consistency of the issue and a "devil you know" mentality, she jumps up to a D-

Hillary Clinton

First, from her campaign site:

"Hillary is proud to have earned the endorsement of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She will always defend the essential health and reproductive care that Planned Parenthood provides for women."
"Women’s personal health decisions should be made by a woman, her family, and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor. Hillary will fight back against Republican attempts to restrict access to quality, affordable reproductive health care. She will defend access to affordable contraception, preventive care, and safe and legal abortion—not just in principle, but in practice."
Her site also provides further detail on her position here. If we look over her past stances, she does seem somewhat consistent, although she seems to fluctuate between a moderate "safe, legal, rare" stance and an abortion on demand stance. Her voting record as Senator seems to reflect this. She does at point discuss constitutional rights of those seeking "reproductive care", however, seems to neglect those very rights when it comes to religious objections, or 10th amendment issues. Because of this, she solidly gets an F

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Where do they stand: Firearms and 2nd Amendment

Where does each presidential candidate stand on gun rights? Before we really dig into the issue I want to ensure my personal opinion is clear: Each individual has a right to seek to protect themselves, seek training, and to own and utilize firearms in a responsible manner. In general, it is my belief that while firearms should not be completely unregulated, a majority of the regulation should be on a state and local level, as different populations have different wants and needs, and a one size fits all approach is woefully inadequate on a federal scale.


Chris Keniston (Veterans Party of America)

This one is a fairly simple one to write, his position is very clearly "shall not be infringed". Here's his more in depth statement on the issue. Solid A+

Darrel Castle (Constitution Party)

Again, on this issue, fairly straightforward, gun rights are a constitutionally enshrined right. He states in a Jan. 2016 response to President Obama's speech on gun control: "What will the president’s new gun control measures do about all this? Absolutely nothing. That’s the sad part of all of it. The whole disgusting, teary-eyed show was just that, a well-orchestrated plan to continue controlling and directing the disorder, chaos and misery of this country." Also, the Constitution party platform regarding gun rights: "The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied."
He gets an A+


Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

As governor of New Mexico he refused to sign bills that would increase gun regulations. In his 2012 book "Seven Principles" he states: "My message was a simple: individual freedom, individual rights and less government run with a common-sense business approach. I opposed public funding of abortion and federal land management control, and I supported lower taxes, term limits, tough criminal sentences, gun ownership rights, right-to-work legislation and public funds for school vouchers. I wanted to make certain that liberties and freedoms are equally available to all, with a limited government which basically ensures that no one is harmful to anyone else." (emphasis added), regarding his campaigns for governor. He has also discussed how increasing gun laws only deprives law abiding citizens, and that gun free zones make us less safe. He also opposes using watch lists as a violation of due process, and has been consistent, as governor of New Mexico and in his campaigns since, in supporting individual liberty and constitutional rights in this area. The only area of concern here is his running mate Bill Weld, who has made some outlandish comments regarding firearms and regulation thereof, and he has a more shaky history on gun rights than Johnson, however, he has since reaffirmed his commitment to individual liberty in this matter.
I would rate Johnson an A+ in this issue, but with Weld being on the ticket, He drops to an A.

Evan McMullin

Evan has promising things to say about Gun rights, stating on his campaign website:
"The right to bear arms is at the heart of the American experience. Patriots armed themselves to win our independence, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment confers this individual right to all Americans. As a CIA officer, Evan has carried arms to protect himself in warzones, and he supports the rights of all Americans to protect their homes, families and freedoms and to use firearms for sport, hunting and all other lawful purposes." As well as: "Evan will reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and turn its purpose to assisting law enforcement in the solution of gun-related crimes rather than serving as a regulatory agency and back-door gun control organization embedded inside the Federal government. Evan will also seek 50-state reciprocity for concealed carry permits." These are both very promising statements. An area of concern, even while pointing out that Trump and Clinton both support "no fly, no buy" and other use of watch lists, removing due process, he then goes on to state that the FBI watch lists are valuable security tools, although he does state they need more transparency and due process concerns should be addressed, however, it is still a concern that I noticed. He gets an A

Donald Trump (Republican Party)

Another unreliable one on gun control, Trump used to be much less pro-gun than he suddenly appears to be. In his book "The America We Deserve" he states: "It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions." and "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun". He has since changed his tune, declaring himself a huge second amendment supporter and stating he would oppose any new gun regulations, and that the focus should instead be on mental health issues. Granted, people do change their minds over time, and it is possible that he has genuinely done so. However, he continues to support FBI watch lists and "no fly, no buy", a position that removes constitutional rights without due process.

He has said some promising things on gun rights, but he's not proven himself trustworthy, and the support of "no fly, no buy" in violation of the 5th amendment is deeply concerning. He gets a C.

Jill Stein (Green Party)

While gun control is not directly mentioned on her campaign website, she has often in the past mentioned her stances on gun control, including favoring Australia style restrictions, reinstating the "Assault weapons" ban, and calling for "Much tighter" restrictions. I will give her this much, she is at least consistent, certainly more so than Hillary. She does however also put a strong emphasis on improving mental health care. Because of this focus, she gets a D-.

Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party)

She is frankly somewhat all over the place on this issue, back in 2000 she supported a national registry, then backed away from the idea and tried to paint herself as a "pro gun" alternative to Obama in 2008. When campaigning in 2008 she talked about "fondly remembering" going shooting with her grandfather, as well as presenting an on the surface semi sensible approach:  "What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense." However she has since swung back to the left, actually stating that Bernie Sanders is not tough enough on guns in a 2015 primary debate. She has also knowingly misused statistics, stating that 33,000 a year die from gun violence, while the actual figure for homicides with firearms is 11,000, still a tragic number, but less dramatic of a statistic.

Furthermore, she supports "no fly no buy" stating "if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."

 She discusses closing the internet sale loophole, which is actually both not as bad as gun control advocates make it out to be, and not as nonexistent as gun rights advocates say it is. But, generally speaking, if you go to an online store to buy a firearm, you will have to go through a background check and through an FFL dealer to actually get the firearm. Private online sales are less regulated, but lets be honest, if someone wants to buy or sell a gun online, they will find a way.

She also discusses closing the "gun show" loophole, which is also...not really a thing, or at least not to the degree she would have you believe.

Basically, on 2nd amendment issues and gun control, I wouldn't trust her, whichever side I was on. She clearly demonstrated in 2008 that she will change positions as it is politically convenient to do so, and her positions now rely on fear and emotion, as well as distortions of the truth if not outright lies.

From a civil liberties perspective, her record and statements on this matter are terrible, she gets an F.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

3rd Party Presidential candidates, a comparison

I've seen several comparision posts for presidential candidates going around, but they all compare the top two and maybe Johnson or Stein, and none of them really seem to actually address anything at all in depth. I decided to put one together of the alternative candidates running. In the interest of space and clarity, I did not include the "top two". Even still, each of these issues mentioned are often more complex than the snippets included here, so I do encourage you to research them further. All information I used is either from the respective candidates campaign sites, or from ontheissues.org I tried my best to not favor any one candidate, but to share what they have said on each subject. I know there are also many other issues than the ones mentioned here. In the interest of full disclosure, my preferred candidate is Gary Johnson. That said, I hope this helps you decide on a candidate that more aligns with your perspectives. Unlike many of my other posts, I did my best here to remain objective and not steer towards any particular candidate.



IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
AbortionState issue, supports parental notification, supports counseling, opposes government funding, opposes insurance mandate, up to the States per 10th amendment, individual decision.Pro choice, healthcare is a right, abortion and birth control fall under healthcare"Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity. From conception to death - and any time in between - life is precious and we have a responsibility to protect it. A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person"right to life under 5th and 14th amendments, "1. Veto and refuse to spend every penny of funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. 2. Recommend to Congress, and work to convince Congress, to take away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over such matters."No official position, personally pro life, social issues are not constitutionally federal matters
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
Firearms/2A issuesSupports concealed carry, Supports gun rights, armed law abiding citizens reduces crime, opposes "no fly no buy" and other federal lists as violations of right to due process Favorable of Australia style gun control, wants increased regulation, increased focus on mental health"As president, Evan McMullin will never infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun-owners. Instead, he will respect the founding spirit of our country by ensuring that Americans have the ability to defend their families and enjoy their sporting traditions without government interference." Favors use of watch lists, but states due process concerns must be addressed"The Constitution Party stands opposed to his efforts to disarm the American people, whatever the president’s motives may be. The Constitution Party opposes what the government usually refers to as “gun control” – and that is gun or ammunition confiscation, gun or ammunition registration and the restriction of semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines. We in the Constitution Party understand that armed people are free while disarmed people are slaves"Per the constitution "Shall not be infringed"
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
healthcarefavors free market solutions, state issue, federal government should not be involvedhealthcare is a right, supports single payer universal healthcare"ObamaCare has failed American families, driving up costs and reducing access to far too many. With competition, deregulation and innovation we can build a modern health care system that delivers accessible, affordable and high-quality care. Vulnerable populations, including patients with preexisting conditions, should be protected. Real healthcare reform means putting patients, families, and doctors at the heart of health care."" If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results – and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers. We denounce any civil government entity using age or any other personal characteristic to: preclude people and insurance firms from freely contracting for medical coverage"constitutionally not a federal issue
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
taxeseliminate the IRS, completely redo tax code, favors the fair taxIncrease taxes on the "rich", increase inheritance tax "aristocracy tax""make the tax code fairer and simpler, helping to spur business innovation, especially the growth of small businesses, which are the country’s most important job creators. Small businesses should pay closer to 25 percent of their profits in taxes, whereas now there are many that must pay almost 40 percent. Right now America also has the highest corporate tax rate – 35 percent.....it should be substantially lower. Income tax rates also need to come down, especially for the middle-class; once the economy starts growing again at an acceptable rate, high-earners should also get a break.""I have proposed a taxing system whereby taxes would be apportioned to the states as the census dictates. If my state of Tennessee had two percent of the nation’s population, for example, it would be liable for two percent of the budget. It would be incumbent upon the representatives from Tennessee to help hold down Federal spending. The Federal Government would be encouraged to spend less not more. The states would be empowered and Washington would be dis-empowered. Washington’s hold over the states would be broken and the states would be sovereign again – Washington would have to ask the states for money. States would be free to collect their revenue as they see fit. Alaska might tax its natural resources and Florida might tax tourism. In Nevada, it would obviously be gambling. Since people could keep their income the economy would explode with growth."eliminate the income tax, replace it with a consumption tax or possibly a flat tax
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
tradeSupports free trade, considers tariffs and other restrictions "protectionism", "skeptical" of trade agreements but would sign NPPOpposes trade deals including NPP. "To stop the outsourcing of our jobs, it's very clear we need to stop expanding the free trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and which also undermine wages here at home by effectively threatening workers that if they don't drop their wages and their benefits, that their jobs are gone. We saw the first free trade agreement, NAFTA, enacted under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. We saw it carried out under George Bush, but then we saw Barack Obama expand three free trade agreements and is now negotiating a secret free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that will continue to offshore jobs, undermine wages, and, as well, this time compromise American sovereignty with an international corporate board that can rule on our laws and regulations and say whether or not they pass muster. This is an absolute outrage against American sovereignty, democracy and our economy."Supports trade agreements, including TPP, "Evan believes that trade is an engine of prosperity and that well-designed trade agreements can help our economy grow even more."Opposes TPP and other trade agreements as attacks on national sovereigntyvacate existing trade agreements, impose penalties to make overseas manufacturing "less attractive"
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
immigration and border security2 term governor of a border state, opposes mass deportation, focus on keeping criminals out, create a path to easier work visas and welcome those who want to work "Having served as Governor of a border state, Gary Johnson understands immigration. He understands that a robust flow of labor, regulated not by politics, but by the marketplace, is essential. He understands that a bigger fence will only produce taller ladders and deeper tunnels, and that the flow of illegal immigrants across the border is not a consequence of too little security, but rather a legal immigration system that simply doesn't work. Militarizing the border, bigger fences, and other punitive measures espoused by too many politicians are all simplistic "solutions" to a problem caused by artificial quotas, bureaucratic incompetence and the shameful failure of Congress to actually put in place an immigration system that matches reality.""Obama's recent night raids and deportations of Central American families and children are inhumane and morally reprehensible. Deportation of these vulnerable, abused refugees is morally abhorrent. We are all immigrants in this country--with the exception of native Americans. The diversity of multicultural immigrant America has always been the core strength of our nation. Our 12 million undocumented immigrants are hardworking, tax-paying community residents who take the hardest and worst paid jobs. They should be celebrated, not intimidated with the threat of deportation. It's time to create a welcoming path to citizenship and put an immediate end to the shameful era of deportations and detentions. Fundamentally, the immigration crisis must be resolved by ending the harmful US policies (including drug wars, predatory trade agreements, and political and military interventions) that are turning whole populations into refugees to start with.""The path to reform begins with securing our borders. Once they are secured, there should be a process of earned legalization for the illegal immigrants who are already here. There is simply no efficient way to deport 11 million individuals; doing so would break apart families and likely cost $100 billion. Furthermore, legalization is not amnesty. While addressing illegal immigration, it is vital to remember that legal immigration is one of America’s greatest strengths. Immigrants and their children have a long record of hard work, starting businesses, and creating jobs. Still, we need to reform the legal immigration system so that it prioritizes American interests and security, including the protection of workers from low-wage, low-skill competition."According to the Constitution Party’s platform, its members oppose illegal immigration and amnesty of any sort, including proposals that would provide some sort of pathway to citizenship for those who are in the U.S. illegally.Reform and streamline the immigration process, current process is a "bureaucratic quagmire, encourage input from states, immediate moratorium on deportation of immigrants awaiting citizenship by marriage
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
foreign policyavoid foreign entanglements, cut foreign aid that does not directly serve national interest, remain in the UN and NATO but cease interference in foreign affairs. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."End overseas meddling, US is member of world community, not world cop, end foreign aid to countries with "humanitarian abuses", focus on human rights, international law, and diplomacy, end support for Israel, refers to Israel/Palestine as "apartheid occupation""Evan McMullin will continue this tradition of leadership that has made America the world’s indispensable nation.""Opposing brutal dictatorships and speaking out on behalf of democracy and human rights are also essential to American leadership. Other nations follow our lead because they understand that we pursue the collective good, not just our own narrow self-interest. While American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and intelligence officers have borne the cost of this leadership, the pursuit of common interests has enabled us to build a network of democratic allies across the globe."Withdraw from the UN, opposes a "globalist agenda", "I believe in a strong defense, but I believe in a ‘mind your own business’ type of government as the Constitution requires us to do,"pursue a policy of non-interference, continued, conditional participation in the UN, overseas actions must be constitutional
IssueGary JohnsonJill SteinEvan McMullinDarrell CastleChris Keniston
Ballot AccessAll 50 states(including DC)on the ballot in 44 states (and DC), Write in for Georgia, North Carolina, and Indiana, not on the ballot in Nevada, South Dakota, or Oklahoma.On the ballot in 11 states, write in brings total to 34 states, click here for full list on the ballot in 24 states, write in for 18 states, 3 states pending write in access, click here for map and state party listballot access in Colorado and Louisiana, Write in status confirmed or pending in 27 states, click here for list

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 14, 2016

Distracting "injuries"




As some of you are aware, I worked for over 7 years as an EMT, both commercially and volunteer, before stepping off the ambulance and on to the tractor. I have been thinking lately about several of the different political attacks and mudslinging ongoing between the two main candidates and their respective supporters.

One of the first, and arguably most important concepts we learn in EMS is the concepts of triage and of "distracting injuries". Basically, when assessing a trauma patient, a provider would first ensure what we refer to as "ABCs" Airway, Breathing, Circulation. The mindset here is that if the airway is not viable, patient can't breathe, or patient is bleeding profusely or otherwise not correctly circulating blood, then the patient dies, so fix those first, if those are bad, nothing else (broken bone, etc) is relevant until ABC issues are dealt with.

After dealing with ABCs, we would then check for possible spinal, neck, or head injuries that would require intervention to protect against further injury. So on so forth, basically prioritizing treatment of possible injuries, first focusing on immediate life threats, and then addressing issues from there as time and available personnel and such allows.

Now, as you sit here reading this, you may be asking "what the heck does this have to do with politics?" Great question. Here's my point. Many of the attacks the two candidates are lobbing at each other are distractions. They aren't addressing actual issues, like foreign policy, tax or fiscal policy, or trade policies. They are things that, while not entirely unimportant, are distractions.  For example, comments Trump made 10 years ago. Vile, terrible, tasteless, horrible, pick your adjective. But, while perhaps an indication of character flaws, it is not relevant to actual policy issues. It allows both of them to avoid actual relevant, policy related discussion that the American people deserve to hear. Another one is Hillary's Emails and the (non)investigation by the FBI. Do not misunderstand me, I am not dismissing nor saying either is unimportant. Because it distracts from real issues.

Think about it, if we are so focused on things like Trump being a dirt bag, or the latest stupid comment he made, or Hillary's pant suits, or email issues, or whatever, then we aren't holding candidates and the media accountable to actually discuss policy and actual events.

I am not saying these things don't matter and should be dismissed, but prioritized as far as our attention.

Trump's sexual comments are, say, a broken ankle. It's bad, it hurts, but, it lets both him and Hillary have something to argue about that isn't, say, foreign policy, arguably a broken neck in comparison.

Now, in the case of patient care, many of these issues are pretty well defined, and on political issues we may each draw different lines as to what we would consider "serious" and "less serious" issues. And again, I'm not dismissing them as unimportant. I'm saying, we as the public need to stand up and demand that we remain focused on policy, both proposed, and where possible, past policies and past positions of relevance.

It certainly is questionable the number of sexual assault accusations suddenly appearing against Trump. The timing, that is. I don't dismiss sexual assault, it's a serious charge. However, we have to ask ourselves, considering the timing, is this a legit thing? Or is it an issue conveniently timed to pull a sleight of hand. And not just by the Clinton campaign. Think about it, I keep mentioning the Trump tapes and sexual assault because it is the latest issue, but this campaign has been an endless display of mudslinging and avoiding any actual real policy debates. The patient (America) has a punctured lung, and Trump and Clinton are arguing over how to handle the broken ankle.

I'd much prefer to hear how they are going to address the growing national debt, various foreign policy issues, tax policy, civil liberties, and constitutional issues. But they don't want to talk about those things, so instead, we'll talk about how Trump is an arrogant person and Hillary is a liar (We knew these things...they aren't breaking news. They are relevant, but they shouldn't be dominant)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Who is Evan McMullin

Some of you may be asking the same question lately, who exactly is Evan McMullin? What is his background, his positions? I had the same question tonight after a friend mentioned he was supporting him. I've heard the name, and snippets here and there, but don't know much about him, so I decided to check him out, and share what I found.

 Background:

 He was born in Provo Utah in 1976, and grew up near Seattle. He holds a bachelors in international law and diplomacy from Brigham-Young, and a masters in business administration from the University of Pennsylvania.

in 2001 he worked in Amman Jordan as a Volunteer Refugee Resettlement Officer for the UN, and worked for the CIA from 2001 to 2011, serving overseas in counter intelligence and intelligence operations in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. in 2011 he started work at Goldman Sachs, and in 2013 became a senior adviser to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for national security matters, and most recently, in 2015, worked as chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, a position he resigned to run for President.

In May of 2016, he presented a TEDx talk to the London Business School "Why saying 'never again' to genocide is not enough"



 Political Stances

 Here is his Issues page if you would like to check out what he has to say directly.
Overall, he appears to be a solid small government conservative, as well as being pro-life. However, I do have some personal concerns.

He would continue federal involvement in education, while he rightly critiques common core, and talks about state and local governments leading the way, which is good, and expanding choices and encouraging states to support homeschooling, also good, constitutionally, education is entirely a state and local issue. Better than Trump or Clinton for sure, and scaling back federal meddling is definitely a positive step, it isn't a step far enough.

His foreign policy, while this is certainly an area where, of the candidates running, he has perhaps the most extensive direct experience, I get the impression of reading his views on our role in the world, that while he rightly condemns the irrational policies of Trump, his only real critique of Clinton on foreign policy is that she is not trustworthy. I get the impression that he would continue foreign interventions. I understand defending our interests and national security, but many of the issues he discusses, while noble, seem to allude that he would continue our role as world police, meddling in sovereign affairs overseas, including increasing our military presence in the Baltics to counter Russia. On foreign policy, I would class him as a hawk for sure. I'm all for a strong military and protecting our interests, but I do not support an aggressive and confrontational foreign policy, that is part of what has gotten us to where we are now.

On healthcare, he starts well with repealing Obamacare, but then he talks about giving a tax credit to uninsured families, as well as other federal entitlement programs. The federal government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, and, while some of his ideas may well be interesting to see tried on a state level, I can't support a candidate who would involve the federal government in healthcare matters when there is no constitutional place for federal involvement.

On energy policies, he would eliminate federal subsidies. A great start for sure, however, he would push through the Keystone pipeline and other pipeline projects. My greatest concern here is encroachment on native lands, which he makes no mention of, however, overall, I like what he has to say regarding energy policy and the environment.

On poverty issues, he again has some interesting ideas, but again, they are ideas that, constitutionally, should occur on the state level. While he mentions encouraging states to lead the way, he discusses various tax credits and programs that, while again, are noble ideas that could indeed work well as state programs, have no place as federal programs.

Overall, he has several good ideas, and is a step ahead of Trump and Clinton for certain. I like several of his policy ideas, and think he would certainly be an improvement if he were to become president. Were he running for state office, I would seriously consider giving him my vote. However, as a presidential candidate, while he is certainly a step towards returning to constitutional limits, he would continue to involve the federal government in constitutionally state issues, admittedly in a reformed and more limited way, but still overstepping constitutional bounds. His foreign policy is also to interventionist for my preferences, although it is certainly preferable to Trump's. I'd say on foreign policy matters, he would closely compare to that of George W. Bush, although I do get the impression that he would allow military leaders more discretion, which, if you are going to have a hawkish policy, is important to having a successful one.

 Ballot Access

 Due to his late announcement in August, he does have limited ballot access. He is on the ballot in 11 states:


  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Idaho
  • Iowa
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Minnesota
  • New Mexico
  • South Carolina
  • Utah
  • Virginia
And has write in status in

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Delaware
  • Georgia
  • Illinois
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • Ohio
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Vermont
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
The above list is from his website, and efforts in some states are still ongoing. Per his website the campaign hopes to have at least write in status in 40-45 states. Some polling data seems to show he has turned Utah into a 4 way race with a very possible chance of winning the state, giving him the same potential as Johnson of becoming the next president if the election is thrown to the house.

Overall, he is certainly an interesting and thought provoking candidate. I will not be supporting him due to the reasons I stated above, however, I will say he would certainly be a better choice than Clinton or Trump. As I have made clear in the past, Johnson is my first choice, and Keniston would be my second, were I rating candidates in order of my own preference, I'd put McMullin at 3rd choice. An interesting Republican, but still essentially a Republican.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, October 13, 2016

New York Senate Race

Let's not forget that along with all the madness of this years presidential circus election, there are other elections as well, including for one of NY's senators.

(side note, if you google search "my ballot" and put in your address, it brings up an unofficial display of federal, state, and local candidates and ballot issues you will see when you go vote)

On the ballot this year are:

Wendy Long (Republican, Reform, Conservative)
Charles Schumer (Democrat, Independence, Working Families,Women's Equality)
Alex Merced (Libertarian)

While I do encourage you to research the candidates running, I myself will likely be voting for Alex Merced. I've been following him on Facebook for a while now, and while we do not agree on everything, we agree on what matters most (in my view anyway...) that individuals, not government, should be free to live life as they see fit. I found much I agreed with in his policy platform, including a peaceful non-interventionist foreign policy, allowing the free market to function and address issues,immigration reform, and so forth. I firmly believe that on the federal level, a constitutionalist/libertarian approach, favoring individual freedom, states rights, and the free market, are a winning combination. I can think of very few issues I have supported Chuck Schumer on, and Wendy Long, well, she resoundingly lost to Gillibrand, and has heartily endorsed Trump...not reluctantly or towing the party line kinda endorsed...heartily. 

So, with all that in mind, I won't be voting for the corrupt Schumer or for the trumpkin Long, I'll vote for a voice of liberty in the senate. 

I will also say that Robin Wilson has some interesting things to say, and I encourage you to check her out. I will not be supporting her or the Green party, as I tend to believe that free market solutions are a better answer than state mandates. However, she is well worth a look, and is certainly a better choice than Schumer or Long. I would argue that the people of NY state would be far better served were she and Alex the "major" candidates in contention.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Ownership of self and state coercion

A pivotal religious liberty case is ongoing in the state of Washington. This is a case that has far reaching ramifications for not only the freedom of individuals to freely exercise their faith and moral beliefs, but regarding freedom of association, freedom of speech, and whether or not one owns the product of their labor and talents.



Image source: LCMS


First, the background, a Richland, Washington florist is being sued for declining to make floral arrangements for the ceremony of a homosexual client. Of note here, Barronelle Stutzman, the florist, did not refuse service outright. In fact, the man in question, was a long time client. Furthermore, she was very clear in the significance of wedding ceremonies to her faith, and recommended other florists that could help.  This is not a matter of a gay man being denied flowers for his wedding. Nor even of a hateful or spiteful business owner attacking his beliefs. In fact, the two were long time friends.

"I knew he was in a relationship with a man and he knew I was a Christian. But that never clouded the friendship for either of us or threatened our shared creativity — until he asked me to design something special to celebrate his upcoming wedding."
"I’ve never questioned Rob’s and Curt Freed’s right to live out their beliefs. And I wouldn’t have done anything to keep them from getting married, or even getting flowers. Even setting aside my warm feelings for them, I wouldn’t have deliberately taken actions that would mean the end of being able to do the work I love or risk my family’s home and savings."
"This case is not about refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation or dislike for another person who is preciously created in God’s image. I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend."

Source: Why a friend is suing me

The point here is not whether or not you or I or anyone else agrees with her moral decision, the point is we own our creative abilities, our labor, and our talents. If one can be coerced to do something they feel is wrong, or even just do not wish to do, then ownership of self and individual freedom begins to fade.

“Barronelle and many others like her around the country have been willing to serve any and all customers, but they are understandably not willing to promote any and all messages,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. “The briefs that have been filed in support of Barronelle encourage the court to affirm the broad protections that both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution afford to freedom of speech and conscience. These freedoms protect Barronelle in the same way that they protect an atheist painter’s right to decline to paint a mural for a church, or a pro-same-sex-marriage print shop owner’s right to decline to print materials for a rally promoting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” 
Source: (LCMS) Synod joins amicus brief for florist sued twice over marriage view 

We as a free and diverse people must never forget that while we have a right to our beliefs, to live freely, to seek happiness, we do not, nor should we ever, have the right to coerce another to our view, or to coerce another to support something we want that they may well fundamentally disagree with. If one's labor, talents, and creative abilities are ones to share freely, then we can have a diverse and beautiful marketplace of diverse creations. If we decide that individuals must set aside a portion of themselves, must conform, then we will lose that beauty, we will lose wonderfully talented artists and skilled people who may find themselves forced to decide between deeply held faith and their business. It does not matter if you think an issue is trivial or minor. Because you see, you may have a deeply held belief, that I may think is a non issue. If we live and let live, we are both happy. If I demand you set aside that belief, because it conflicts with what I want, then I become an aggressor seeking to steal your liberty, your ownership of self. This is fundamentally wrong, and is another tale of the loss of individual rights in our society. Whether you believe rights are God given, or inherently natural, regardless of your faith, this is wrong. Either we have ownership of self, of our talents, of our labor and the creation thereof, or someone else does.
 
 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)