From your perspective, what is the job description of the office you are seeking?
My job would be to enact legislation that will secure our individual inalienable rights.
What are the top three issues facing the state or district you wish to represent?
While there are many issues facing the state of Idaho and District 11, I believe they can all be boiled down to a loss of liberty. Those who wish to destroy our liberty have accomplished this by design, and it is upheld by the people due to a general lack of understanding of the proper role of government.
What solutions do you have to address these issues?
We need to rewrite our state constitution, removing all elements of communism, socialism, and fascism. In addition, the vast majority of the laws enacted in our state need to be repealed, with the remainder being rewritten to bring them into conformity with the proper role of government.
What part of your background or experience has prepared you for this position?
I understand the proper role of government and have the ability to analyze legislation to determine if it conforms to that role.
Do you feel the average person is well informed and understands the workings of government?
I think most people would consider themselves to be well informed, yet most would admit to not understanding the workings of government. The real issue at hand, however, is the general lack of knowledge and understanding of the proper role of government.
If you answered no to the above question, how do you plan to improve communication with your constituency?
I try to use my influence to educate people. I strive to always be clear on my positions.
From your perspective, what is the purpose and proper role of government?
The proper role of government, as so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our God-given, individual rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
Explain why you believe the people should be excited to vote for you?
I offer a real change to business as usual at the capitol. My positions are clear and I have the courage to stand up against all those who want to take our freedoms away. I am ready to lead the fight for freedom and liberty in our state.
According to the Idaho State Constitution, under what circumstances may the citizens of Idaho have their right to Habeas Corpus suspended?
In Article 1, Section 5, it states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires it, and then only in such manner as shall be prescribed by law." This is a slight variation from the U.S. constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." As with so many other elements of the constitution, this measure has been ignored for political purposes (such as "indefinite detention" of "enemy combatants").
Does the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, an Act passed by Congress, supersede the Idaho State Constitution? Does it supersede the U.S. Constitution?
No acts of Congress supersede the U.S. constitution; they must be made in pursuance thereof. Any federal law or treaty made that does not meet that criteria should be considered null and of no effect. If a law does meet that criteria, then it becomes the supreme law of the land and does supersede the constitution of the state of Idaho. As for the NDAA, I have not read all 565 pages of this act, so I cannot comment on specifics. However, based on the rampant violation of the constitution exhibited by Congress, I would be confident that this bill falls largely into the null and void category.
If elected you will be required to take an oath to defend both the U.S. Constitution and the Idaho State Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. At some point, an issue may arise where a federal law violates the Constitutional rights of Idaho citizens. If such a case were to arise, are you prepared to stand in the between the federal government and the citizens of Idaho as their elected representative or Constitutional Officer?
The oath that I would be required to take states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Idaho, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of senator (or representative, as the case may be) according to the best of my ability." There are many federal laws that violate the constitution. I am a firm believer in nullification, and I am absolutely prepared to interpose on behalf of the citizens of Idaho. The federal government could be brought into check if the states had the courage to enforce the constitution.
What does it mean in the Printz vs. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997) when the Supreme Court ruled that the states do not have to administer federal regulations?
Far too many people have been led to believe that the Supreme Court can enact legislation, and they apply the decisions of the Supreme Court as if it were law. All legislative powers are vested in Congress. Properly interpreted, decisions of the court apply only to the parties involved. So, in this case, Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona would not be required to enforce the interim provisions of the Brady Act.
If a murder occurred on a United States military base in the state of Idaho, what criteria would be used to determine who would have jurisdiction to prosecute the crime?
According to the constitution of the United States, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed". According to the constitution of the state of Idaho, "No person shall be held to answer for any felony or criminal offense of any grade, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury or on information of the public prosecutor, after a commitment by a magistrate...." I am sure some agency of the federal government would step in and try to claim jurisdiction, but there is nothing that would support their actions.
What policies will you support to ensure that good teachers are paid a fair wage and retained in Idaho?
The wages of teachers should be left to free market forces.
What policies will you support to improve the learning conditions for Idaho’s students?
All public schools need to be restored to the private sector. Public funding and government control need to be completely removed.
What is your stance on Common Core? (For or Against — Why)
I am against Common Core because the government should not be involved in controlling or regulating education.
Should any groups, organizations or entities be given access to a student’s personal school records?
Only if parents give permission.
Do you support school choice including home schooling?”
I support school choice within the private sector, including home schooling. My own children are home educated. School choice in the public sector (specifically with charter schools) has led to taxation without representation and further enticement of families into government controlled schools.
From your perspective, how do you think schools should address safety concerns?
Each individual school should make that decision, free from government intervention.
Do you feel it is important that all children attend a 4-year university upon graduation from high school?
I think that students should be free to choose whatever path they want to pursue.
Do you feel that levy’s are necessary to fund education?
Parents have the responsibility to provide for their children's education. Obviously this would not preclude utilizing funding from other sources. However, using taxes to pay for education is a socialistic principle and should be abolished. Consuming two thirds of the state budget, public education is the ultimate welfare program.
What ideas do you have for funding education in Idaho that does not require raising taxes?
Returning education to the private sector will automatically shift the financial burden to parents, where it properly belongs. Not only would taxes not be raised, a significant portion of taxes would be eliminated.
What ideas do you have to reduce education spending in Idaho without sacrificing quality of education?
Returning education to the private sector would certainly reduce tax spending. Free market forces would determine the overall spending on education. Removing government control of education would immediately improve the quality of education.
Do you support local control of education?
If local control means parental control, then yes, I support it. If local control means government officials at any level, then no, I do not support it.
Should parents have input into the curriculum being taught to their children?
Parents should not just have input into the curriculum; they should dictate the curriculum being taught to their children.
Do you support the teaching of homosexuality in public schools?
This reveals one of the problems with government control over education. No one has the right to dictate what other people's children are taught.
Do you support a student’s right to pray and/or read religious books or materials in school?
Parents should determine the curriculum and activities in which their children engage.
What is the purpose of the public school system according to the Idaho State Constitution? (Hint: Article 1, Section 9)
Article 9, Section 1 states, "The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." While I can agree with the need for an educated electorate, the way to accomplish that is certainly not through public education. In fact, this idea is the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto. Besides, the idea that a government can provide a free school is logically impossible.
Do you support national standards testing?
No, besides the obvious disapproval with government control, I also disagree with standardized testing in general.
From your perspective, is ObamaCare constitutional?.
No, there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes Congress to pass legislation with regard to health care or insurance.
In Justice John Robert’s written opinion upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare, he stated “The States are separate and independent sovereigns, sometimes they have to act like it.” What does Justice John Roberts imply with this statement? Does Justice John Roberts strengthen the legal ability of states to push back on the demands of the federal government?
The implications of Justice Robert's statement are of little import. We must stop treating the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority on constitutionality and pretending that it can dictate policy. The proper way to deal with "ObamaCare" is not through the courts (especially since that was done improperly as per the constitution), but rather through nullification at the state level.
What free market reforms do you propose to bring to healthcare in Idaho?
I propose that all laws regulating health care and insurance be repealed. The government has absolutely no business getting involved in these areas.
Do you support the People’s right to unimpeded access to all healthcare information, services, treatments, and product they deem beneficial?
Do you support the government controlling & limiting the list of approved practitioners & acceptable treatment methods?
Do you support or oppose the People’s right to purchase health insurance across state lines?
Do you support or oppose mandatory vaccinations?
Oppose (I personally oppose all vaccinations, but I would never force that decision on anyone.)
What was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment?
The framers understood that government exists to secure our individual rights and that power is delegated to government by the people. As individuals, we have the right to protect our family, our property, and our liberty. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural and necessary extension in securing our basic rights. The second amendment does not grant a right, but rather acknowledges an existing right and prohibits government from infringing upon that right.
Do you support or oppose the People’s right to self-defense?
Do you support state nullification of all unconstitutional federal gun control laws?
Do you support Idaho’s current Open Carry status?
I believe that the Second Amendment is unqualified, as it should be. The Idaho constitution contains a serious and inexcusable flaw (and lack of logic) when it states, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the...." The passage of laws to govern the keeping and bearing of arms is the very act that is prohibited by the words "shall not be infringed" in the U.S. constitution and "shall not be abridged" in the Idaho constitution. There is no law required to allow the bearing of arms in any manner, and there certainly should not be any laws prohibiting such actions.
Do you support the People’s right to carry guns on public college and university campuses in Idaho?
It is unfortunate that public colleges and universities exist; if they were private, as they should be, this would not be an issue. Yes, I support the right to carry guns on campus.
Do you support or oppose restrictions on gun and/or magazine models or sizes?
Do you support or oppose mandatory gun registration in Idaho?
Do you support or oppose Idaho teachers and faculty being able to carry a gun on school property?
Again, if schools were private, this would not be an issue. Yes, I support the right to carry guns on school property, and I actually think it is a good idea considering the degraded state of our society.
Do you believe that “Gun Free Zones” keep those areas safe from gun violence?
I believe they keep criminals really safe. The rest of us... not so much.
Do you support or oppose the repeal of the Patriot Act?
Do you support or oppose No-Knock Raids by law enforcement in Idaho?
Do you support or oppose warrantless surveillance of Americans?
Do you support or oppose the targeting of Americans with drones?
Do you support or oppose Internet privacy?
I believe that it should be left up to private interactions and preferences. I do not believe that the government should be involved in any way. The government should certainly not be carrying out any surveillance without a warrant (issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized").
Do you support or oppose indefinite detention under NDAA?
Oppose ("the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial")
Are you concerned about the current trend in data gathering? If so, what do you plan to do about it if you are elected?
Yes, I believe that much of the data gathering activities of the government are for the express purpose of accumulating power to enslave the citizenry. I would sponsor legislation to dismantle such programs at the state level, and nullify federal programs whatever extent possible.
Is law enforcement being overly federalized? Why?
Yes, the federal government is using the enticement of funding to exert control over local law enforcement agencies. Also, many federal agencies take on the role of law enforcement contrary to constitutional authorization. There are those who seek for power and use a carefully planned agenda to amass that power and destroy liberty. Control over law enforcement is part of that plan.
Is law enforcement being overly militarized? Why?
Yes, much of the funding to local law enforcement is for the express purpose of equipment purchases. Also, federal agencies with no proper law enforcement authority are acquiring massive amounts of military equipment. The military has also been used for law enforcement purposes contrary to constitutional authorization. Again, this is all by design of evil individuals and organizations.
What does the Constitution require when it requires “Due Process”?
In the Fifth Amendment, it states, "...nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The Fourteenth Amendment also contains a due process clause, " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Fourteenth Amendment clause is obviously not necessary as the Fifth Amendment already covers that case. (I support the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment.) Due process limits the power of government to capriciously violate the rights of citizens through the process and proceedings of the courts of justice. This constitutional limitation placed on government, like so many others, has been ignored.
What is the difference between substantive due process and procedural due process?
Procedural due process refers to maintaining a fair legal procedure for any government process that can result in the loss of basic rights (punishment for crime). I believe this was the intent of the framers. Substantive due process extends the due process clause to a restriction on legislation. This idea has been controversial because, in practice, it has amounted to judicial control over states and "legislating from the bench".
Does Due Process apply to federal agencies?
The judicial branch is charged with the process of punishment for crime, which can result in the potential loss of basic rights. When there is a need for due process to be applied to a federal agency (the executive branch), it is a pretty good indication that the agency is in violation of constitutional authority.
Does the protection of free speech include or cover an individual’s right to criticize anyone or any behavior it chooses, no matter how politically incorrect? Ex: Homosexuality
Free speech, just like other rights, is limited by the rights of others. So long as the rights of another are not violated, it can be exercised freely. When rights are violated, for example with libel, slander, or defamation, then it is a crime.
Do business owners have a right to refuse to do business with anyone they want?
Do you support or oppose the government creating special classes of citizens?
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Are you concerned about the erosion of property rights in Idaho? If so, why? If so, what do you propose to do about it if you are elected?
I am greatly concerned about the violation of property rights. The property tax, personal property tax, zoning ordinances, building codes, other regulations, and the abuses of eminent domain and due process are all examples of property right intrusions and violations. I would sponsor legislation to eliminate these problems.
What is Agenda 21 and why does it matter in Idaho?
Agenda 21 is a United Nations initiative to exert their plan for world government through environmental related regulations at the federal, state, and local levels. It is extremely comprehensive and has already started to be implemented in our state and local governments. It is dangerous to our individual liberty and to the sovereignty of our nation. The United States needs to get out of the United Nations, and the United Nations needs to get out of the United States.
Why are free markets important?
Free markets are necessary to secure individual liberty and property rights. Government intrusion in the marketplace always results in the violation of individual rights. The proper role of government in the economy is to punish crime.
Does government spending really stimulate the economy?
Government spending is always a drain on the economy. Government does not create wealth; it simply takes it from those who can and do create wealth.
Do you support or oppose restrictions on the voluntary and honest exchange of value in a free market?
Do you believe that parties to a transaction should determine the price at which assets, goods and services are exchanged and not the government?
Do you believe that economic prosperity can only thrive in a society based upon the principles of free enterprise and limited government?
Creating an environment where economic success can happen must not preclude the possibility of economic failure. I do believe that, as a society, lasting economic success can only be achieved if the government is limited to it's proper role and the people exercise morality and individual responsibility.
Do you believe that economic freedom is essential to all other freedom?
I believe that economic freedom is part and parcel with all other freedoms.
Do you support the State of Idaho competing in business with the private sector?
No, not only is it ethically wrong because it could never be fair, it also violates the proper role of government.
STATE / FEDERAL LANDS
What is the “Equal Footing Doctrine” and how does it relate to Idaho?
The equal footing doctrine is that new states shall be admitted on the same terms with the original states. This is important to Idaho since it was not one of the original states. The equal footing doctrine requires that Congress treat Idaho as though it was one of the original states.
Do you support or oppose the transfer of federally controlled lands in Idaho to the State of Idaho?
The constitution does not grant the federal government permission to own or control the vast amounts of land within the state. In fact, the constitution states, "Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Obviously this procedure was not followed. The real issue here is that the land should not be under the control of government at all. What purpose would the state have in owning or controlling the land? Is there a proper role of government that is met by this land? I believe it should be privately owned with the exception of those places that are necessary to the functioning of a properly limited government. The federal government is constrained by the constitution, and so should the state likewise be constrained by it's constitution in only owning land for the express purposes in carrying out the proper role of government.
Should the federally controlled lands in Idaho be returned to the State of Idaho, what do you think should be done with those lands?
The land be sold to individuals.
If Idaho gains control of some or all of our land & resources, would that allow us financial independence from federal money, lower or eliminate property taxes, or help to solve school funding issues?
Many people believe that state control of land resources could fund state government. However, the development of natural resources by the state is contrary to the proper role of government and would always be in direct competition with the private sector and interfere with a free market economy. Idaho could have financial independence from the federal government right now, if the legislature would restrict itself to it's proper role instead of implementing federal programs. Property taxes should be eliminated immediately, as they prevent true private property ownership of land. School funding would not be a public issue if the public schools were returned to the private sector.
How much territory is granted to the Federal government in the Constitution? Where is the authority found in the Constitution authorizing the Federal ownership of that land?
The constitution does not limit the extent of territory controlled by the federal government; however, it does limit the land owned within state boundaries to specific uses.
Article I, Section 8 "17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" and Article IV, Section 3 "2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Our system of government was designed to have a central government of very limited powers with all powers not delegated to the federal government being reserved to the states and the People. This system has been eroding with power being centralized in Washington D.C.
Is this a concern for you, and if so what will you do about it if you are elected?
First, I have a concern with a single word used in the setup of the question. The 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Notice the use of the word "or" rather than the word "and". Many people, including constitutionally minded legislators believe that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the state. This is simply not true. While the current situation with our state government reflects this power grab, it should be understood that a properly limited state government should also be delegated specific powers in the same manner as the constitution. This is something that I would work on as a legislator. Also, I would sponsor legislation to nullify federal laws and acts that go beyond the limited powers delegated to the federal government.
In 1931, the Idaho Supreme Court stated, in the case of Independent School District v. Pfost, 51 Idaho 240, 252 (1931): “The tax in question is by a method other than those mentioned in sec. 2, art. 7, of the Constitution but is not on that account unconstitutional, because it is not necessary that the Constitution expressly authorize the legislature to enact each and every kind of tax adopted by it. An act is legal when the Constitution contains no prohibition against it.” It is the position of the Idaho Supreme Court that state constitutions are not documents of limitation. Instead, the Court believes that the Legislature may do anything it wants to, unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution.”
Yes or No: Would you support a “Tenth Amendment” type amendment to the Idaho Constitution which would limit the power of the Legislature to only those powers expressly provided by the Idaho Constitution?
The constitution of the state of Idaho does not provide specific powers to the Legislature in a manner similar to that of the U.S. constitution and Congress. In fact, it does the opposite in some instances. The enumeration of powers would be necessary before such a clause would make sense. I would like to see a complete rewrite of the state constitution modeled after the federal constitution. If that happened, then yes, a Tenth Amendment type clause that acknowledges the reservation of powers to the counties, or to the people, would be quite welcome.
Which of the 3 branches of government did the Framers of the Constitution intend to be the most powerful? From a budgetary standpoint, is this true in the state of Idaho?
The framers did not intend for any of the three branches to be the most powerful, but rather to provide checks and balances. In Idaho, the intent is the same. While the legislature controls the budget, I don't think the amount of spending reflects the perceived power of any branch, since they all have varied functions. Vying for a higher budget for any branch of government is contrary to limited government principles.
Given that our credit based money system creates money only when money is borrowed into existence, and in our system all money is represented by debt instruments, and all the previously created money must be serviced with an annual interest payment, is it mathematically possible to balance the federal government’s budget? Would our credit based monetary system implode if the federal government balanced its budget?
The debt based monetary system foisted on us by Congress through their abdication to the Federal Reserve bank is simply not sustainable. Also, the budget does not reflect the true financial position of government. One would have to consult the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for that information, as government operates as a corporation. A proper understanding of money is necessary (but severely lacking) to implement a free market under a limited government. Money is simply a common medium of exchange within an economy. Congress was granted power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" To coin money is to stamp it (precious metals), thus fixing a value to a specific amount. The money is not owned by government, nor has it created any wealth. This standardization is necessary to run government, but it does not dictate anything to the private sector. Congress was also authorized "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;" Also, a restriction was put on state governments, " No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" If these constitutional provisions were adhered to, and government stopped trying to control money, and if the fractional reserve bankers were exposed as the frauds and criminals that they are, then their monetary system would implode and we could not only balance the budget, but also rid ourselves of the hidden tax of inflation.
Did the Declaration of Independence nullify all the prior acts of the British Parliament that previously applied in the 13 American Colonies?
The language from the declaration is as follows, "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;" so the answer would be, "yes".
Do you support or oppose the People’s right to unimpeded access to healthful foods and beverages of their choice?
I support the right to acquire or use any and all food or beverage, not just healthful ones.
Do you support or oppose the expansion of farmers markets, farm based sales, co-op food markets and direct agriculture sales from producer to end consumer?
I support the free market in whatever direction it takes. Government should not control any expansion or otherwise dictate a type of market.
Do you support or oppose the People’s right to private contract including right to private herd sharing and community garden sharing?
I support the right to private contract. Period.
Do you support or oppose lawful raw milk sales in Idaho?
The government should not control substances (private property) nor transactions (free markets). I do not support "legal" sales of any form, because it means that government is granting permission to do something that we already have a (lawful) natural right to do. I likewise oppose all restrictions, prohibitions, and regulations on free market transactions.
Do you support or oppose the required labeling of food for GMO / (genetically modified organism) content.
I think required labeling would be better replaced with market demand and criminal prosecution of those who intentionally deceive others, including omission of facts, through labeling that results in harm to the consumer.
Do you support or oppose the Republican Party platform of protecting life from conception to natural death?
I support that particular statement from the platform, but please refer to my Republican Party Candidate Disclosure for specific criticisms.
Do you support or oppose forcing citizens who are pro-life to subsidize organizations that perform and promote abortion?
I oppose forcing any citizen to subsidize any organization.
Do you believe that abortion is a state issue?
Elective abortion, the premeditated murder of an unborn child, is a crime falling under the jurisdiction of the state.