The definition of Marriage has been, since the conception of the United States, the union of one man and one woman. While there are different religions which respect different traditions regarding marriage, this has been the standard for what our GOVERNMENT recognizes as a marriage. When a Muslim enters the United States, even if he has multiple wives, the U.S. government recognizes only one. When Mormons settled in the Utah Territory, despite the fact that their religion allowed for plural marriages, the federal government would not allow them to join the Union unless their Constitution outlawed Polygamy, which they did. The LDS Church also made polygamous relationships in violation of their faith. Similarly, the government does not recognize marriages that otherwise defy the tradition of what creates a natural family--a man and woman, which are necessary to create a child. Even close familiy relations are forbidden from marrying in most states. Therefore two men, two women, brothers and sisters, parents and chilidren, or any other combination of genders has not been recognized by the government as marriage. Recently, the very wealthy and powerful homosexual community have sought to normalize their sexual behaviors by having politicians pass laws recognizing same-sex "marriages." Coupled with this, they have promoted the acceptance of cross-dressing, sex changes, transgenderism, and a variety of other gender-oriented efforts to deny a person's natural biology. Pushing this upon our youth is wrong, as it is inconsistent with nature and is contrary to the religious beliefs of many parents who cannot afford to remove their children from the public school system. No person alive on earth exists because two men or two women came together to conceive them--every person who has ever lived (including those conceived en vitro) has been the result of the union of the genetic material of a male and female human. Marriage simply recognizes this, and has traditionally given the blessing of a sacrament to the occasion. Government has also seen fit to encourage such unions by granting benefits and special tax status to married couples. It is a corrupt effort at social engineering to mis-use government to re-define marriage. Foreseeing such efforts, the State of Maryland revised its Family Law in 1973 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. And in 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to protect marriage at the federal level and to relieve states from having to recognize the marriage laws of other states. Today, State Constitutions and other laws which uphold the definition of marriage are under attack by homosexual activists. I will stand firmly with those who adhere to the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, for if we re-define it for homosexuals, we must also re-define it to benefit polygamists, incestuous relationships, and countless other sexual minorities whose relationships are not recognized by the government. Doing so completely destroys the sacredness of marriage, and treats it as nothing more than a registry of which people are living together. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage protects the religious rights of those who believe that marriage is sacred; it protects the rights of children to be raised by their own biological mother and father; and it protects the rights of States and Individuals to speak freely against behavior they disapprove of, and to structure their government in a way that reflects their values. That, in the end, is the definition of Liberty, and that is why Marriage must be protected.
While Healthcare is important to each and every person, it is not a right. Neither is food, water, or shelter. Furthermore, we inherit our rights from our Creator, not from government. When the framers of the Constitution affirmed through the 5th Amendment the natural rights to "Life, Liberty, and Property," they made sure that each and every American would be allowed to pursue these necessities without interference by their fellow man or by government overseers. They guaranteed us freedom from government by restricting what government could do to us. When the government gets into the business of not only providing services, but also of guaranteeing outcomes, it wrongfully obligates itself to pick "winners and losers." In the name of equality, it takes from those who have in order to give to those who have not. It would be highly immoral for government to engage in plunder against some of its citizens, even on behalf of the needy. When government forces us to be charitable, good people cannot be good on their own initiative. The role of charity and churches are to provide for the needy, and government is neither charity nor church. Therefore when government mandates that every citizen must buy an approved healthcare plan, it violates the conscience of the individual. The presumed reason for this coercion is that if everyone buys healthcare, the costs for each individual will be reduced. However, government imposes upon every citizen the additional responsibility of paying for millions of people who cannot or would not pay on their own. When healthcare costs become too great for the patient to bear, that is the time for individuals to be generous--it is not time for government to become a charity by increasing the national (public) debt. We have already witnessed the disastrous impact of socialist programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which demand that everyone participate for the benefit of the few who are recipients. Government healthcare will seek to expand these failed policies to give benefits to everyone. The obligations of these programs far exceed our national debt, which has never been paid down and is currently approaching $15 trillion. These numbers reflect a poor economic policy and the refusal of our elected officials to be good stewards of the People's money. Additionally, the individual mandate will provide an unfair benefit to those healthcare corporations and insurance providers who are in league with government bureaucrats, ensuring a captive clientele that has nowhere else to go for healthcare because government will guarantee its agents a monopoly. We have already seen our government (under Presidents Bush and Obama) play favorites with big banks and auto companies that deserved to go out of business. If we allow the politicians to rob the People of the United States in order to help their biggest campaign contributors and business partners, we will be lining the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class, thereby increasing our economic woes. The primary advantage of free-market capitalism is that if you dislike a product, a service, or the company that produces it, you have the freedom to not buy their goods or even to send your business to their competitors. If we give government the power to forcefully mandate that every citizen buy healthcare, the profits will go to the friends of the politicians, and our ability to choose where our money goes will be destroyed. The Bill of Rights protects us from this type of abuse by the government: the 9th Amendment guarantees that We the People have all rights that are not outlined in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment declares that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government are retained by the States, and those not explicitly given to the States are retained by the People. Our rights belong to us first, and we grant certain powers to government that are necessary for an efficient administration of our country, our States, and our neighborhoods. As rulers of these United States, We the People must assert our right not to be forced by our servants in government to buy Healthcare against our will. It is up to us and us alone to achieve justice. We must send a Clear message to the President and Congress that: Healthcare must be Voluntary!
The Constitution provides two purposes for taxation by the federal government. These are 1) to pay the debts, and 2) to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Article I, Section 8 outlines what falls under these headings, and clarifies what the legitimate purposes of taxation should be. Article I, Section 9 also limits the federal government from imposing a capitation or direct tax upon the People without "apportionment" (i.e. even division among the states by population) in the same manner that we choose our members of Congress. Until the 20th century, this principle was upheld, and challenges to the government's ability to levy taxes without apportionment were won all the way up to the Supreme Court. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was passed to expand the government's taxing power in the name of increasing revenues. However, our government has proven incapable of managing its bills, and has failed to pay down one cent of the national debt in almost 100 years that the progressive income tax has been in existence. Furthermore, progressive taxation allows the government to borrow on anticipated incomes and engage in "deficit spending" rather than paying its debts on-time. This money is then used to buy political favors (compromising the principles of elected officials,) and is also used to fund non-profits that many taxpayers are personally, ethically, and religiously opposed to. By forcing an "everybody-in" mentality on taxation, many Americans are forced by their government to support undeclared wars, advocacy groups, and even large corporations in ways that violate their conscience. Being that the United States were founded as a result of the American Colonies protesting against unjust taxation, paying taxes should never be regarded as a "necessary evil." As Henry David Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience: "If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood." It is time we took responsibility for the actions of our government. The only taxes collected should be those which are for legitimate reasons, levied upon willing citizens, and used only to pay for the Constitutional purposes of government. All other monies must be returned to the People. We must End the IRS and repeal the 16th & 17th Amendments, restoring the rights of Indiviudals with respect to their government and restoring the States as the functioning representation of a common people, bound by geography and proximity, and protecting them as free and independent republics within the federal system, as our founders envisioned.
Some may ask, but how can we end the IRS? The answer is that it will not be easy, but the template has already been shown to us. Universal Healthcare was not easily obtained, and even though it was highly unconstitutional, a popular campaign was waged to bring the idea into the thoughts of every American and to the lips of every politician. Ironically, the current Healthcare plan will use the IRS to impose its financial mandate. We must likewise wage a People's campaign to undo the damaging effects of almost a century under the progressive (oppressive) income tax. We must remind ourselves that the government's power to tax only exists because We the People are sovereign and give our assent to some taxes, and not to others. Finally, we must elect people to office who will fight for our right not to be taxed unjustly, and who will ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
While we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, the only thing preventing Government from depriving us of these rights is the U.S. Constitution. Our founders saw fit to protect our citizens with a Bill of Rights. To guarantee these rights, I will:
Uphold & Defend the Constitution against all Enemies
Preserve Traditional Marriage & Religious Freedom
Protect Parental Rights to make decisions for their Children
Promote Safe, Legal Immigration by upholding the Laws
Defend the Innocent & Save Human Life whenever possible
It is important to understand that while I may have opinions on many issues about which people are concerned, as a member of Congress, I will represent one vote out of 535 on shaping the nation's policy and preserving our rights. Some issues are appropriately NOT in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I will consistently vote against any bills that do not conform to the enumerated powers (compare Article I, Section 8 to the 9th Amendment), or which violate the Constitution. The purpose of government is to protect our rights, especially the rights of the minority and the individual, against the tyranny of the majority and against outside forces.
In the state of Maryland, hospitals are collected into a network known as the "Maryland Hospital Association." The State and County governments provide financial assistance to the medical system through taxpayer dollars. Emergency and First-Responder services are also provided by the Counties.
In accordance with the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the ability to provide healthcare is a power reserved to the States and the People. While it is clear that many of Maryland's citizens are unhappy with the quality of healthcare they are receiving, this is a result of poor performance on the parts of the Governor, the Legislature, and the county governments. A proper fix to this situation would be to identify incumbent politicians who have perpetuated the State's healthcare problems and vote them out of office, replacing them with legislators who have productive ideas about how to bring more money into the State and who can work with area hospitals to improve the process of providing healthcare.
Naitonalized Healthcare is not a viable solution. Everywhere that Universal Healthcare has been attempted, it has failed or bankrupted the State, including Massachusetts, Oregon, and Hawaii. It would be a horrible economic mistake to try to implement a medical plan that has proven to be failure everywhere it has been tried on the entriety of the nation. Furthermore, in order to allow for the system to pay for those who do not work, mandatory participation would be required. Like Social Security and Medicare, this would be Unconstitutional and would violate the 13th Amendment. I cannot support a system which enables or allows Slavery in these United States.
WAR & PEACE
Only the Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare War. Under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress was empowered to appoint a Commander-in-Chief for the Armed Forces of the United States. They chose George Washington who already had command experience in the military, but who only became President several years later under the current Constitution, which explicitly gave the President that authority. As Commander-in-Chief of the Military, the President's job is to fight the war and command the troops, but the President DOES NOT have the power to initiate a war or to deploy troops without the approval of Congress. The Constitution actually restrains the President in this regard, and Congress should re-assert its warmaking powers. The United States have not declared war since World War II. Our military should not be used for expansionist or imperialist policies, nor should we be involved in "nation-building." Instead, our military should be used for the defense of the States and to suppress rebellions, insurrections, or invasions. This means the bulk of our mission will be at home, not abroad. Support for our allies can be given, but Vietnam shows what happens when a draft and a standing army embroil us into a protracted war that does not serve our national interests.
The U.S. Constitution allows no appropriation of money for the raising and support of Armies to be for more than two years, and the Maryland Constitution further states that "standing armies are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the Legislature." We should make our military conform to the State and Federal Constitutions, including the Air Force, which was properly created as part of the Army, but which has now been made into its own department without a Constitutional Amendment. The end result should be a smaller, more efficient military that serves primarily for the protection of the States and Territories, but which is not used for public relations, humanitarian missions, make-work projects, or other duties not related to National Defense.
In addition, I recognize that today's conflicts do require a considerable amount of intelligence gathering and covert operations. Just as patriots during the American Revolution like Nathan Hale went behind enemy lines to gather critical intelligence, these missions will need to continue in the interests of protecting our territory, our people, and our freedom. The military should be able to provide this service, however if a Constitutional Amendment is needed to facilitate the existence of civilian intelligence agencies, I would support it, so long as the identities of our agents would be vigorously protected and all branches of government would have access to the intelligence gathered, given that those with access to such information acquire and maintain the proper level of trust and confidence beforehand.
CZARS & CABINET MEMBERS
In accordance with Article 2 of the Constitution, all Presidential appointments must be confirmed by the Senate, or the power to appoint other Officers must be granted by the Congress. I will work to make sure this Constitutional restriction on Executive Power is upheld. I will also work to de-fund government agencies which are unnecessary, wasteful, or which violate the U.S. Constitution (to include the Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Department of Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Reserve.) I also support an audit of the Federal Reserve, so that Congress can fully observe and regulate what this non-governmental body is doing.
The Constitution provides Congress with the power to Coin Money and to regulate its value. It also holds that only Gold and Silver will be accepted as money among the States. I will work to return this nation to Sound Money, as in prior generations where a person could take their paper currency to the bank and exchange them for actual specie gold or silver. Although there is the potential for corruption and cornering the market with such a system, the current system has proven no better at preventing recessions, and has led to periods of booms, busts, and bubbles, including the Great Depression and the current Bush/Obama Recession. Congress should be given the power to control the national money supply and prevent corruption in accordance with its Constitutional Powers, but there should also be provisions for competing local currencies. Should this prove impossible or impractical due to the expansion of today's economy and an unavailability of precious metals, then I firmly believe the Constitution should be amended to provide for other forms of hard currency that will be abundant in supply and the value of which will not be as readily susceptible to speculation. Regardless, the nation's monetary system should not be based upon fiat currency or on fractional reserve banking as it is today.
D.C. VOTING RIGHTS
The land for the District of Columbia was originally ceded by Virginia and Maryland in 1801, however when the Slave Trade was outlawed in DC, Virginia petitioned to have its land returned. In 1840, this became what is now known as Arlington and Alexandria. Since only states (not U.S. Territories) have voting representatives in Congress, it would be Unconstitutional to give D.C. a voting Representative under any arrangement, regardless of party considerations. The best way to give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress (without violating the city's neutrality as the nation's Capitol) is to retrocede the remaining land back to Maryland, just as was done in Virginia. Like the Pentagon in Arlington, any federal buildings, monuments, national parks, and other federal land would remain under the control of the Federal Government.
Title 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Code defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman..." I would not vote to expand the definition of marriage beyond this. Furthermore, Maryland Family Law §2-201 states that "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State." The following sections go on to state that "A man may not marry his: grandmother; mother; daughter; sister; or granddaughter," and that "A woman may not marry her: grandfather; father; son; brother; or grandson," nor may they marry their in-laws, nieces, nephews, or similar family relations by marriage. This is all in keeping with religious tradition, and demonstrates that marriage is not about whom somebody "loves," but is in fact a ceremony deeply rooted in religion and designed to represent the actual union of families through blood. It is the full and Constitutional right of a Free and Independent State to define marriage in accordance with the will of its people, outside of the dictates of the federal government or unelected judges. This is why I support the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects States from having to recognize out-of-state marriages that do not conform to their laws. Maryland's Attorney General, Doug Gansler, was completely out-of-line in ruling otherwise, and violated Maryland Law, Federal Law, and has endangered his own State's sovereignty by doing so.
I do not believe that married couples should be taxed at a higher rate than unmarried people, and would vote to eliminate the marriage penalty, among other elements of the tax code.
I would further support that any government benefits being received by people who are physically handicapped or disabled would continue to be received regardless of marital status or spouse's income.
While some argue that "taxes are necessary" to allow government to provide services, a tax on incomes is not necessary, and has not been in existence for most of this nation's history. A tax on incomes, previously unconstituional, was written into law in 1913 as one of several "progressive" amendments. It has enabled an irreversible cycle of cronyism, nepotism, patronage, and unchecked political corruption in the Federal Government, to the detriment of the States and the People. While the 16th Amendment allows the government to levy a tax on incomes, an Income Tax is still in direct conflict with other sections of the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a Direct Tax, a Capitation Tax, and the the 5th and 14th Amendments protect us from being deprived of our Property without due process of the laws. A tax on incomes (as well as a tax on other forms of property such as real estate) goes against these protections created by our nation's founders. Chief Justice John Marshall once said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy," in determining that the States could not tax the Federal Government. I firmly believe that in a like manner, the Federal Government should not be able to destroy (tax) individuals against their will through an income tax.
If elected, I plan to introduce legislation to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. (The 17th Amendment dissociated Senators from their State Legislatures, making them simply statewide representatives who do not actually reflect the make-up of their state population, but simply the majority/plurality of the special interests with pockets deep enough to finance their campaigns.) I will further propose that people who enjoy paying taxes and truly prefer sending their money to the Federal Government for safekeeping will be allowed to do so. The government would keep this money, deducted in the amount they choose, from their paychecks for the duration of the year, to be redistributed to the owners in full on April 15th of the following year, or whenever the owner requests it.
I will further strengthen the 13th Amendment to clarify that neither any tax, nor fine, nor conscription, nor involuntary servitude, nor any other punishment may be imposed upon the People except upon due process of the laws.
ENERGY & THE ENVIRONMENT
I fully support exploration of all sources of fuel throughout the states that can be achieved through a free-market economy. The States should have their own Environmental Protection Agencies to look out for potential harm to the ecosystem. The Federal Government should get involved to settle disputes between the States, or to make arrangements for international agreements regarding the environment. However, we should never give up our national sovereignty or the right to use our own resources as needed or desired as a result of such international agreements.
In Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay is an area of great environmental concern. As a multistate body of water and wildlife refuge, it requires cooperation between Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia to keep this waterway clean and safe for use by the People. It is also important for the government to work closely with the business community to ensure that dumping does not threaten marine wildlife, and that fishing, crabbing, oyster harvesting, and other use of the bay conforms to local laws.
JOBS, HOUSING, & THE ECONOMY
Lowering taxes on business and personal incomes will put more money into the hands of individual citizens and business owners. This has proven in the past to stimulate the economy, leading to more purchasing power and commerce. Lower taxes also lead to greater job creation as businesses use the additional capital to expand. I will aggressively pursue a policy of lower taxes, Free Trade, and laissez-fair capitalism to increase Peace, Prosperity, and Opportunity to all Americans.
I will further work to host job fairs and maximize opportunities for citizens in all working trades to obtain employment by connecting jobseekers with employers.
Devastating losses in the housing market can be made up for by allowing workers to keep more of their take-home pay by taxing them less, and by making sure that homebuyers are able to meet and negotiate with their lenders to refinance their mortgages, or to reach agreeable terms under which the property can be sold or the debt settled. While government should not interfere with private contracts, government should exercise oversight by making sure that fraud is not being commited against businesses or against individual consumers. Individuals whose finances are in very dire straits could be referred to economic counselling and mediation, which will allow them to negotiate with their lenders and develop a plan for getting out of debt, which is the key to all financial success.
On the Federal level, the government should cut spending dramatically and pay down the national debt. John Maynard Keynes was a Socialist, and his economic theories have proven a failure, and have left us with trillions of dollars of insurmountable debt. We must act aggressively to prevent the total failure of our economic system due to "Progressivism" and Socialist Economics. I will work diligently to pay back the money that has been borrowed against Social Security, Medicare, and other New Deal Programs. While current participants would be allowed to continue using these plans if they choose, future generations would be given free-market investment alternatives, and participants should always have the choice of opting out, or investing in a personal retirement plan or medical savings account.