Q&A: Jesse Bryant – Libertarian in Senate district 35

• The Constitution of the Great State of Kansas requires “the legislature shall make suitable provision for the finance of the educational interests of the state”. What is suitable and indeed; what is the proper role of education, both Public and Private, in Kansas?

Well it’s true that education of the next generation is crucial to the prosperity and continuation of any modern society. Personally I would argue that it can be done differently and much more efficiently than it is currently being handled… however, I know that the Founders themselves have said that the people are more likely to suffer evils while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have grown accustomed. So then, for the time being public education will continue to be a major state function, and it is up to us Conservatives, to take the unpopular stand and use common sense. We currently pay 60% of our state budget for public education, which now amounts to about $12,000 per student annually. At this rate, every child attending twelve years of public schooling will have over $144,000 invested in them. Then they will be expected to go into debt for an additional $30,000 to $80,000 in order to get a college education and learn a skill or trade to make them employable in any competitive sense.

I’m not afraid to say that this is an absurdity, an obscenity and an utter tragedy. The schools must be run more efficiently and they must make their students employable when they enter the work force as adults. We have programs adopted now to incentivize schools to give practical training to their students, but this is not enough; they must be required to do so. Also, the athletics programs must be cut from state funding, and they must be funded by the local communities instead. We have more than enough funding to ensure that all of our children receive adequate education. But when we have rural school districts spending $8 million on new gymnasiums, then we should be ashamed to admit that our academic standards are lapsing. It’s embarrassing.

 

• Do children deserve to get only as much education as they can afford, or is quality education a right for all children no matter their socio-economic status? If it is a right what are you going to do to ensure that the children getting a smart start today will receive quality education and have the opportunity for higher education in the future?

Well the short answer is no… but I’ll elaborate. You see the Founding Fathers were very adamant about the importance of education and they knew that it was the most likely way to ensure prosperity. And so in 1787, the same year in which they convened for the initial drafting of the Constitution, they unanimously passed the Northwest Ordinance, which stated that education would be encouraged and that schools should teach three things in particular, those being Religion, Morality and Knowledge.

They believed in education, of course; John Adams visited France and commented grimly on the fact that out of 24 million inhabitants, only about 500,000 people in France could read and write.

And yet, they never included education in the Bill of Rights, which is the cornerstone of our society and the Law of the Land. They knew better than to do so… because to say that you have a right is a very heavy implication, and they understood the weight of it. So if these children all have an innate right to get and education… then that implies that someone must be forced, required, compelled… to educate them. And of course, you can’t force someone to provide a service in a free society… that would be called slavery. So instead we’ve created a system by which we have to tax our citizens, in effect making them all captive servants to the government, in order to fund a service which only a portion of the population may enjoy. There’s nothing ethical about that. But once again, it has become a tradition, and people can’t break from it.

So if we want to provide education for all children in our community, then we have to manage our budget appropriately to do so. We live in a finite world and we have limited resources. But there are ways that it could be done, effectively and affordably. If every parent simply provided a computer for their child, and they pooled their resources to rent a building and hire a few studies directors, then they could have access to seemingly limitless information via the internet, and online courses could be devised to provide the best teachers and make the best education available to any child, anytime and anywhere and it would be much cheaper than our current rate of $12,000 per student in a year. The technology is available to us now, and yet we are still following a basically archaic method of schooling, simply due to tradition and a lack of ingenuity. I’m suggesting that we use our heads and improvise… if we can’t do that ourselves then how can we expect our children to learn any better, unless they ignore us entirely?

 

• This year the Governor’s proposed budget included significant cuts to the Children’s Initiative Fund which funds early childhood programs. The allocation of the state’s master tobacco settlement to the Children’s Initiative Fund seemingly was intended to be a way to safeguard the funding of the early childhood programs. The current level of funding was maintained at $56 million dollars, but will likely be scrutinized again next year. Do you support the current funding level of the Children’s Initiative Fund and are you in favor of maintaining the current percentage of tobacco settlement dollars to the Children’s Initiative Fund?

It violates my ethics… for several reasons. The first being that I take issue with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, in the nature of its execution, and that this is all a government fleecing operation, and tobacco is such a regulated and policed crop that it has basically invited all manner of governmental intrusions into our lives. Regulating alcohol and tobacco are two of the three reasons why we have the ATF… which is arguably one of the most thuggish and corrupt agencies in world history.

It’s all a perversion of the due process of law, honestly. The reason why the Tobacco corporations were prosecuted thusly was because tort liability supposedly rendered them obligated to make reparations for the health care costs and bodily harm done by their products. While it is true that if companies or businesses produce and sell faulty products, or if they sell goods that are improperly labeled, and this causes harm to their customers, then yes of course they are liable… to the customers themselves as individuals. Not to a state or government entity, and certainly not to uninvolved third parties. So it was all a total misstep of the courts, I think. Tobacco companies must be required to label their products, and they do… so anyone who fails to heed that warning is in effect releasing them from any liability.

And the arguments about the dangers to children, or the nastiness of tobacco in general… are all childish and flimsy to my mind. We have no right to impose ourselves on people simply because they have habits which are disagreeable to us. As for the welfare of the children, I notice that bleeding hearts and socialists always try to use children as human shields and hostages for whatever coup they are planning against the rest of society and our rights. They do whatever they can to emotionalize the argument, because they have no reasonable or logical case to make otherwise.

Which leads me to the final reason why I am appalled by all of this… firstly, why can’t the parents sufficiently manage their children and keep them out of harm’s way, like nature intended them to do and like they have done for countless generations? Why can’t the parents be the guardians of their children, rather than the government? It’s already illegal to sell tobacco to minors and of course it should be, so then how do they acquire it, unless they are associating with disreputable characters, without their parent’s knowing of it?

Well, how is it that children are so untended and their parents have no idea where they are, who they are with, and what they are doing? I’d argue that it’s because of public schools, and other government programs, particularly this monstrous *head-start* program. Aside from studies showing that it provides no significant boost to their academic performance beyond the first year or two of grade school… more importantly it’s just another movement to get children away from their parents as early as possible. It’s horribly unhealthy. If our society actually cared about children, then we would all be good parents, and we would realize that a young child needs love and attention from someone who really cares about them and makes them the first priority… and the only people who can do that are the child’s own Mother and Father.

And this is why I am so baffled and frustrated by the general complacence, the intellectual laziness and emotional instability of modern socialists. I wonder, when exactly are they planning to actually live their own lives? They go to the government for their education and all their learning… they go to the government, begging for jobs and economic stimulus… they demand health care from the government for every malady they suffer… they abandon their children to the government at the earliest opportunity… they rely on the government to *protect* them and harass them day and night with legions of police. They rely on government to decide what’s safe for them to eat, see and do…

Personally I want to be a real man and have a real life. The government can’t give those things to us. The government offers to take our children from us, and we applaud them. Tell me, would we as men feel the same if they offered to take our wives too? No, absolutely not. My family is mine; I’ll be the one to look after them. Anyone who doesn’t feel the same is unworthy of living in a free society. That’s all I can say for people whose response to every question is “There ought to be a law” or “It’s my right to have anything and everything I want”…

 

• The Kansas Legislative Research Department estimates that the cuts in state income tax enacted by the 2012 Kansas Legislature will result in a reduction of 2.5 billion dollars by the year 2018. First of all; do you believe that to be true and if so what will be cut to balance the budget – will it be services to the elderly, to public education, and social services to the citizens of the state?

It all depends, really. If the state taxes relax a little bit, then some new businesses might spring up, new jobs might appear, and new goods or services could arrive in the economy, and so there could be a lot more revenue generated to be taxed, even if it is at a lower tax rate, which would be good, because it would mean that the society and the state would both be getting richer at the same time.

But unfortunately, the federal government is so crippling to business, that it might not even matter what we do as states until we learn to exercise our rights a lot more energetically… because the federal government really has almost zero accountability to us at this point and they can do hit-and-run operations on us any time they like. So, if our representatives in Congress and the national Senate decided to get lower taxes and lower business taxes for us, then we would probably see improvement, yes.

But if we don’t see improvement, what would happen next? Well, that’s a tricky question… I’ve got a feeling that we would just shred the Balanced Budget amendment here in Kansas, and then open the floodgates to debt and borrowing and deficits… because there’s really nothing that can be cut at this point. Not to say that we don’t have plenty of outrageous spending… but politicians simply can’t do anything about it if they want to stay in office.

They can’t cut programs for seniors, because they’ve already done that recently, and seniors are a decent portion of our population and they vote. They can’t touch the education budget, even as bloated as it is… because the teachers and their unions will be in an uproar, and possibly strike… in which case, parents will then also be in an uproar. And of course, those two groups can vote as well. They can’t target state employees either. So I would predict that they would borrow and continue to spend. There’s just too much pressure otherwise.

 

• If state revenues fall due to the tax cut last session as predicted by the Legislative Research Department, state aid to schools is predicted to fall. The Kansas Association of School Boards predicts cuts in the neighborhood of $400 million in FY 2012-15. How will you ensure districts with low property wealth, as many are in the 24^th Senate district and in the 70^th House District, don’t face either large increases in local property taxes or forced to significantly reduce staff and programs?

Well I’ve already elaborated on how I would make education more affordable… but as the politicians currently stand, I say it’s unlikely that they would defund education, but on the other hand it is the largest part of our state budget by far and it is soon going to be the only thing left to cut.

• What is your legislative priority, excellent schools or low taxes, or are they not mutually exclusive? If you believe excellent schools can be maintained in a time of shrinking resources, would you offer details as to how that can be accomplished?

I think we would have much better education if we had lower taxes, to be honest. Of course, there are those who, perhaps legitimately, fear that without heavily funded and mandated public education, there would be some children with truly negligent parents who would never get an education of any kind. Personally I think it’s the duty of the churches and charity groups to handle special cases of that sort. But on the whole, I think that the general state of education and knowledge would improve, and the economy would also improve. So my first priority would of course be to lower taxes, protect property rights and enforce contracts. However as a general rule of economics and indeed, physics itself… I would say that it is impossible for education to be maintained at a high standard when resources are diminishing and the society is stagnant. This is why we must improve the economy and the wealth of society if we want to promote good education and a healthy learning environment.

• What is your position on the proposed expenditure of state surplus revenue to help fund schools after three consecutive years of budget cuts?

Again this baffles me… and it shows how run-amok our governments are, when they can cut budgets and yet somehow get away with still raising enough money to have a *surplus*… basically they’ve been hoarding money that they don’t have any designation for and they don’t need and aren’t using… that money could have been used by the citizens, or saved by them individually for their own future use.

• What are your policy ideas regarding the state’s role in higher education – especially given the rate of increase in cost in the face of fewer financial resources to offset the costs for families of modest means?

Families of modest means should likely not be sending their children to higher education or colleges, unless their child is conspicuously capable of higher learning and can apply for scholarships to cover or at least offset the costs. Otherwise, they will deeply indebt themselves and receive very little in way of returns on their investment. It would be wiser for them to send their children to a training course to earn certification in a skill which they have a talent or a disposition to do; or if not, then perhaps to find on-the-job training for them when they are younger to prepare them for work as adults.

 

• Patrons of Abilene schools USD 435 are familiar with the story of the child throwing starfish back into the ocean, and by that action providing the opportunity for sustenance and nourishment that each starfish needs to thrive. The metaphor is related to each child in our schools; what have you done, or what will you do, to ensure that each child receives the opportunity of educational sustenance and nourishment that he or she needs to thrive in today’s world?

I think I’ve said almost all that I can on this subject… I would give their parents back their money, and make education a free market product like other things are and used to be.

• Does student achievement increase with increased per pupil funding?

Statistically… no. Our expenses on public education per each student in the state have doubled over the past decade, and yet standards and achievement scores have not significantly improved, and certainly not in proportion to the increase in spending or in terms of what is currently being spent. In fact, public school students perform far below home schooled students, who score about 30% – 39% higher on standardized tests. Again, the amount which is spent is not quite as important as the manner in which it is utilized.

• Do you support the consolidation of Kansas School Districts to reduce the overall cost of government to Kansas residents?

It would have to be demonstrated that such a consolidation would actually achieve a reduction in costs. If it could cut down on the number of administrators and payrolls which are not directly involved with the teaching process, or very necessary services thereto, then yes perhaps.

• On a side note, do you support the consolidation of Kansas Counties to reduce the overall cost of government to Kansas residents?

Maybe… but probably not. I know that the zoning laws and requirements for buying land and building in the country, here in McPherson county, are absolutely horrible and I wouldn’t wish them on anyone else. They won’t allow you to build or rebuild a home in the country unless you own at least forty acres. Basically, it’s designed to force urbanization and to prevent common people from owning their own land and houses in the country. So if we consolidate the counties, then these regulations would surely be imposed on a wider area.

Plus, I know from experience that the bigger the area covered and the higher the authority of the office… the bigger the money involved in campaigning will be. Which means that only well-funded or wealthy politicians will get into office, and that means that the collusion between government and business will get even worse. My opponent in the Republican primary spent $37,000 dollars just to win the nomination for his party to hold his district senate seat. To me that’s an outrageous sum and it’s a glaringly obvious example of the influence of money on politics. If we make the local districts and counties bigger, then the money involved will get bigger and so will the corruption surrounding the process. I say we’re better off without it… by the principles of People’s Law, all issues and choices of the people should be decided at the most local level possible. That’s the ethical way to do it, that’s the sensible way to do it, and if costs are too great, then maybe we should reconsider what exactly we’re getting from our governments and what we really need from them in the first place.

• What is your position on the Schools for Fair Funding law suit and why?

I think it’s frivolous, and they should all be fired or have a counter-suit filed against them. First of all, their case is based on a squabble over the relative meaning of the word “suitable”… as in the state is required by its constitution to provide “suitable education”… Well, anyone can complain and argue about what happens to be *suitable* for them at any given moment… but in real terms, this case all revolves around the fact that BSAPP funding reduced by a mere $480 dollars, from $4,492 to $4,012 in a year. And they think that this justifies a lawsuit and a total uproar against our government for finally trying to shave a little spending. Well, this is the reason why our budget will not stay balanced, and we are doomed to fall in debt.

 

• What is your position on Governance by the courts in general? I am thinking of a judge drawing the new district map earlier this year instead of the Legislature to whom the job is supposed to fall…

Well I certainly prefer the courts to decide it, rather than the governor… and I mean that on the grounds of principle, not necessarily speaking of any personal merits of the judges or the governor. I suppose it is acceptable for the courts to break up a stalemate in the legislature, but I think it should be a true stalemate before they have anything to do with it. If the required number of majority votes cannot be achieved, then lower the required majority. The representatives and senators are closest to the people on these issues, since they are the chosen representation of the people… and we can have more influence on them than we could on a judge or a governor.

 

• The Kansas Legislature has had the ‘Community Defense Act’ before it twice and each time the bill has passed the House of Representatives with a super majority of votes but has failed twice in the senate by the narrowest of margins. Please explain your opposition or support for the Kansas Community Defense Act.

Of course, I think that individual communities can, with their citizen’s consent, pass certain regulations or standards… so long as they do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of the citizens, and they do not infringe on property rights. This could be argued over at length… but really I would say that making a statewide law of this kind was totally inappropriate and unnecessary. Furthermore, the standards set forth in the Act itself, seemed totally arbitrary and unnecessary. For instance, if such businesses were required to stay at least 1,000 feet away from homes, churches, playgrounds and schools… then why should they also be required to close at midnight? It makes no sense… once again, the government wishes to interfere without any real cause for doing so.

 

• Federal and State Courts have consistently upheld the evidence that Sexually Oriented Businesses have a negative effect on communities and thus they can protect themselves by reasonable restrictions. Recently the Missouri legislature and Governor passed such state-wide protections into law and the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 unanimous decision that such state-wide restrictions are constitutional. The Kansas bill mirrors the Missouri Law. What stops Kansas from following Missouri along this path to a more positive community environment?

Well, if this is really what the people want to do, then there must be a disconnect somewhere in the lines of communication between citizens and their representatives… but I suppose I need to do more research into what effects exactly, these businesses are supposed to have on our communities. If you ask me, the reason why these businesses have market value in the first place, is because there is already something within the community which welcomes them. So if this is a problem, then I would say it falls to the churches and community institutions, to use their influences to make a change. My guess is that the state hasn’t adopted these laws, because they haven’t received enough pressure from the citizens to do so… meaning that there must not be a strong desire among the people to have these laws. In which case, they’re not needed.

 

• Religious Freedom – At the national, state and local levels there have been efforts to restrict the freedom of religious conscience of individuals and institutions. Such efforts have taken the form of mandates from the US Department of Health and Human Services that would force the religious to provide reproductive services that violate their tenants of faith or a local City ordinance that now mandates religious individuals and institutions to offer services to those who hold themselves out to be transgendered.

Oh no; governments cannot force churches to do anything… nor can they force people to do anything on a basis of their religious affiliations or beliefs. In fact, I would say that they can’t force anyone to produce a product or yield a service, because forced labor is the definition of slavery. The only thing government can legitimately do is to enforce contracts that are established, but they cannot force people to enter contracts against their will. So this is totally un-Constitutional, immoral and outrageous, and in fact it’s an embarrassing display of how far we’ve cowered down to the government, and how much freedom we’ve truly lost as a society. It should be even more embarrassing to Christians in particular, because Jesus himself was killed for defying an authoritarian government. Now we’ve allowed our own government to become just as authoritarian and corrupt as the one which murdered our savior. It’s definitely a disgrace to us all and everything we believe in.

 

• How do you resolve such restrictions on the religious with the 1^st amendment of the US Constitutional guarantee that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion” ???

It’s very simple. Make no laws regarding religion. Nothing to do with religion can ever be done by our government, either to hinder it or enforce it. The government must be totally neutral in matters of religion. The only role of the government in society should be to uphold individual rights, which are covered in the Bill of Rights.

• What are your policy ideas regarding the state’s role in Arts and Culture? What should be the respective roles – if any – of government at all levels, national, state, municipal, in supporting the arts?

Personally I think that the free marketplace of ideas and creative styles, is the best gift possible to the artistic community and the artistically talented individual. It allows the truly talented to thrive on the people’s favor, while at the same time it generally weeds out the incompetent fairly quickly, and spares the rest of us from their hideous creations.

 

 

• In the Candidate Q&A section of July 15^th’s Salina Journal, a candidate stated that it was essential to keep the tax burden low while providing for the core functions of government. To all of you, what are the *core* functions of government in your opinion, and which social service programs would you include as *core*?

Government is just a tool created by man. It should be used only to serve our needs, and if it cannot do so, then it should be discarded. But George Washington had something interesting to say about this… “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”… which is correct. Rome and Greece, are classical examples of the dangers inherent to the excessive influence of democracy, and especially socialist democracies. But of course they are not the best or most recent examples. Britain during the 1800’s is a much more glaring example. I recommend reading “The Man Versus the State” by Herbert Spencer, to gain a full grasp of the horrors unleashed on Britain by socialist policies and government mandates. Socialism and Democracy are the most dangerous and unpredictable government forms known to mankind, the only thing certain about them is that they will eventually destroy themselves.

 

So our Founders established specifically a Republic with a Constitution, meant to solidify limits to the government and ensure stability and freedom for the people. They established the separation of powers in the government, and they listed certain duties and powers of the government within its separate branches. The federal government was intended to address the concerns and problems which were too great for the individual states or for the people to handle on their own. Namely, a national defense and maintaining trade lanes and interstate commerce.

 

But the founders did not say anything of the government providing socialized services to the people, or pretending to be their caretaker throughout their lives. John Adams visited Europe after the Revolution and witnessed firsthand the results of socialism and welfare. He remarked that thankfully, in America such programs would be totally un-Constitutional!!! And so they are, for good reason.

 

 

• What should be the state’s role in caring for the seriously mentally ill, that is, those whose disorders are so severe that they are unable to fully care for themselves and live independently?

I feel I’ve already discusses how I think about government management of charity… but to elaborate on this issue specifically, I would say that it is probably worse for the patients, to be in government care. A government employee of this type usually works for low pay, has little prior screening, and has little motivation. It’s just a job to many of them.

On the other hand, there are ancient institutions which have traditionally dealt with issues of this kind… they are called churches. At least church volunteers are more likely to be motivated by a feeling in their hearts, and by their quest for salvation… I say we need to give them more work to do, and let them feel fulfilled. Churches accept tithes and donations for a reason, do they not? Why not put them to good use again, and remind them of their proper role. The only reason why we have programs of this type in the first place, is because there is a strong desire in our society to care for the unfortunate. So then why not allow it to be done freely?

• Some of Governor Brownback’s proposed cuts, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Childcare Tax Credit- eliminated income benefits for medium and low income families. Were/are you in favor of those cuts or opposed to them?
• Voter ID Bill SB129 – What is your position on the Kansas Voter Identification Bill and why?

I support it on principle, because I think that only citizens should be allowed to vote in our elections and public affairs, and therefore we need to ensure that outsiders do not have the ability to contaminate the process with their own particular desires and motives.

• Does the population of illegal aliens in Kansas present a challenge to the future of fair elections to the citizens of Kansas? Why or why not?

Only if we allow them to vote illegally, or to acquire fake ID’s… which happens from time to time. I think it could be discouraged if we impose heavy punishments for it, and I do consider it a seriously heinous crime worthy of punishment.

• Does the population of illegal aliens in Kansas present a challenge to the future of other government services to the citizens of Kansas? Why or why not?

Only if we allow them to receive public benefits and take resources that were intended for our own citizens… and perhaps it could, if they present a threat to the community and cause damage or harm, which also happens from time to time. Once again, I think we should respond with severe punishments. Now personally, I think that non-citizens who come peacefully and only want to work, do not present a real threat per se…

• Many observers suggest that the Kansas electorate talk conservative but walk moderate. Are government actions a reflection of the people? Do you see your role as a legislator, as a leader, or merely a representative of the electorate?

I would see myself as a representative, only. I might try to make an appeal to the people with my words and actions, and of course there are certain things which I simply would never do regardless of how popular they are… but if that were the case, I would simply resign and let the people choose another representative more fitting to their dispositions. That’s why I try to be honest and upfront about my beliefs and my stances. I want to be sure that the people know what they’re getting and that they have to actually think about what they really want/need.

• What is the proper role of State government relative to the free individual?

Very limited, of course. But specifically I would say that the state should be the shield between us and the federal government, and of course if we really wanted to try any of these laughable socialist programs, they should be done at the state or city level only, and never at the federal level. That way, the people could see for themselves very quickly, the tragic results of socialism and central planning.

 

• Statewide there is a lopsided registered voter affiliation with 47% Republican, 27% Democrat and 29% Unaffiliated. In recent years, the number of voters registered as unaffiliated and Libertarian has grown while Republican and Democrat has declined. At the same time it is commonly believed that the Republican Party is actually 2 parties. Is this reflective of a party that has no clear governing philosophy?

Well it brings a smile to my face to know that even the Unaffiliated outnumber the Democrats in Kansas… now if only the Libertarians could outnumber them as well… we’d be in better shape. But of course, the reason why so many people are unaffiliated or third party, is because the two “major” parties have lost most of their credibility and popularity with the people, with good reason. And yes, sadly the Republican party is not one party anymore and it is losing solidarity after every election cycle… because it fails to stand on principle. I think it has also been infiltrated by Democrats and socialists, in a large degree, hence the disunity. It could also be that Conservative values are not so popular anymore, in which case the problem is worse than it seems.

• This past year Governor Brownback has received criticism for violating the Open Meetings Act when he hosted a number of legislative dinners with committees. Is this an example of Washington culture chicanery slipping into State matters? To what extent do you believe transparency is vital to effective State governance and how would you make your activities transparent to your constituents?

It probably is some kind of chicanery, and yes it’s embarrassing and improper… if I were in office, I’d probably continue to do what I did during my campaign, and post regular video updates on my thoughts, activities and concerns. There would also be the possibility of hosting live forums and questionnaire sessions over the internet in real time with my constituents who wanted to join in. Of course the old fashioned ways would be by telephone or snail mail. But really, the technology exists for us to have total transparency, and the government uses it against us all the time… I think it’s about time we start using it on them, and require that all of their voting sessions and speeches on the house floors should be recorded and uploaded on the internet, or better yet, streamed on a live feed. That should help keep things transparent…

• In Kelo vs. the City of New London, the US Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development as a legitimate public purpose even though the land was developed by a private entity. What are your thoughts on the applicability and use of Eminent Domain as it relates to private property rights?

Eminent Domain is just a fancy way of implying that the government owns everything, and the people are just squatters who can be brushed aside anytime someone in office feels like it. I believe in property rights, as I’m sure one can guess by now, so naturally the whole idea of government taking land from its citizens is repugnant to me. I suppose arguments could be made for the public benefit in some cases, but when it benefits private businesses, then that’s just a textbook case of corporate favoritism and fascism.

• As anyone who has been associated with the military will tell you, it’s not uncommon for the Department of Defense to build a new building to replace a perfectly functional one. A little closer to home, in Kansas there has become a long-standing joke related to “orange cone season” Is the KDOT, engineers and road construction contractors analogous to the Department of Defense and Military Contractors?

It’s a total racket and a fleecing operation, to be sure. On that note, I don’t know how the owner of a major construction company here in Kansas can somehow manage to be Secretary of Transportation in Kansas… seems like an obvious conflict of interest to me.

• Recently the State legislature has considered a number of measures designed to reduce laws that interfere with the free market. A small example that many people are familiar with is the allowing of “happy hour” where it was previously banned. At the same time the legislature only allows grocery stores to sell a 3.2 alcohol content product. To what extent do state laws serve to “protect” one class of business from another class of business in violation of free market principles?

Laws interfere with business all the time. People think that laws have to be instituted to prevent the big businesses from harming the little guy, but I think that most of these laws actually harm the little guy and protect big business. Since the example given is alcohol… that just makes it all too obvious. The government taxes and regulates alcohol excessively in my opinion. And honestly, if the liquor licensing costs weren’t so high, then it would be nearly impossible for any business to hold a monopoly on liquor sales here in America, because there are plenty of old-fashioned country folks who can make all the alcohol you could ever possibly need. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to sell it?

• Supreme Court Justice Scalia recently stated that we may as well not refer to states as sovereigns given that the Federal Government is given powers well beyond the intent of the enumerated powers clause in the Constitution. Give us an example of an area where you think the Federal government has stepped beyond their authority and the State government has failed to reserve and protect its authority.

Well the states are sovereign, just as much as every individual is sovereign. Some people call this ‘State’s rights’ but governments don’t have rights, actually. They have powers, or authorities. And there are two kinds of authority… legitimate and illegitimate. A legitimate authority is one that has been delegated, or given to them, by the people and our representatives. An illegitimate authority is one that is assumed, or taken, by the government without approval by the people. The 9^th and 10^th amendments were intended to give rights to the people of the states, not to their state governments, although the state government institutions should have been the driving force in protecting the rights of their citizens, and sadly they have not been.

There are too many instances of this inadequacy to be named, but a particular case comes to mind, since I have recently been reading from Sheriff Richard Mack’s book, ‘The Proper Role of Law Enforcement’. The execution of the Brady Bill was forced upon him and his fellow sheriffs in Arizona, but he refused to participate in the ATF’s gun-grabbing schemes, and so he filed a lawsuit against the federal government. If the states had more back bone, this never would have been an issue for him in the first place. He also mentions in his book that Waco and Ruby Ridge, two massacres perpetrated by the federal government upon our own fellow citizens, would have been entirely avoided if local sheriffs had dealt with them instead. So this really is a life and death matter of principle. Many people died as a result of the failure and weakness of their state governments.

• Do you think it is appropriate for the President of the United States to use the Kansas National Guard for non-domestic military adventurism rather than maintaining them here to deal with state disasters?

Oh no, of course it’s not appropriate. Our state guard units were intended to be for our local defense and well-being… so no, it isn’t right for them to be deployed to occupy a foreign country. But we are authorized under the 2^nd amendment to maintain a militia as well… so perhaps we should consider it as a viable option in the meantime.

• In a free society, does the majority have the right to impose restrictions on individual behavior by collective action through their legislators? Example, smoking ban, gambling, drug use, and legal age of 21 in Kansas?

I’m glad someone else has noticed this… and yes it is a shocking and frightening phenomenon in our culture, and it needs to stop. Statewide smoking bans are totally unnecessary, they are unethical and disrespectful toward the property rights of business owners and their free choice. The gambling laws are likewise ridiculous and in fact they are an accomplice to the corruption of the state government, and I really believe there is no legitimate reason for the state to be involved in gambling at all. The drug prohibition is accomplishing the exact same thing that alcohol prohibition accomplished back in the day… it has increased usage, increased crime and police brutality, increased the invasion of privacy by government and police. In general, it has just made things a thousand times worse. As for the drinking age, it’s just silly on principle. If a person can be considered adult, then how does it make sense for the state to pretend to be their nanny? If we moved the drinking age to 30, there would be an uproar, and if we brought back prohibition of alcohol there would be an uproar… shouldn’t that tell us something about the absurdity of these arbitrary laws today?

 

• Americans have a right of association, meaning that every individual has a right to associate with any other individual in whatever manner they see fit, socially or economically. Should government be in the “marriage” business or should that be left to the Creator of the institution?

The government should stay out of marriage entirely, whether traditional or not. Marriage started as a religious tradition, so really the government never had any right to interfere with it in the first place; I say they’re out of line on the matter. And yes, people should be free to associate peacefully with anyone they like.

• For the fallible to use government to criminalize a comparable fallibility in others can be considered as the tyranny of the majority and as such, against the American ideal. So, should he with sin cast the first stone or get his legislator to cast it for him? Or perhaps casting stones of sin is best left to the professional Lobbyist?

Well, lobbyists have the expertise in this field. But I don’t think the rest of us want to live with their standards. We should just respect each other’s rights and try to get along.

 

• What are your thoughts about the Tax exemptions to Ad Valorm taxes in the state of Kansas and thus the level of taxation on Local residential property owners and other real property and personal property owners?

 

• What are your policy ideas regarding the state’s role in energy development and what do you think of the Federal government’s actions in energy development and how they have affected economic development?

Energy is a consumer product like anything else. It may be true that it is a national security interest in a large degree, so therefore the government has an interest in it… but in the market place, I say that the cheapest and most efficient forms of energy will naturally be the most lucrative business. For a long time now, the government has worked with oil interests to eliminate competition and prevent the progress of new, cleaner and better energy sources. And now, in return they give us lackluster solar and wind projects which cannot hold their own in the market without government subsidy. It’s looking very grim for the future energy market, and hence, the future of civilization and technology, at this point. I usually don’t like government intrusion in the market place, but in this case it may be necessary to fund the discovery of a new energy source and its development. Gasoline engines can usually be easily converted to run on alcohol… which is cheap and easy to make. If we developed methods of mass production of fuel grade alcohol… that might be a start.

 

• Why does the “free” wind energy cost more than the “expensive” fossil fuel energy on my COOP bill and why when the wind blows many days, do the rotors only turn some days?

I don’t know what to tell you on that issue… I can only guess that it must be a result of poor planning and poor execution on the part of the wind-energy movement. Or perhaps wind energy just isn’t really that great.

• With huge deposits of natural gas here in Kansas and neighboring western states, and the price of natural gas at historic lows, why are we not generating more electricity with it?

Either because regulations make it too difficult to pursue, or because there isn’t enough business interest in it.

• Where and when will the next power plant be built to serve the growing needs of Kansas Electricity consumption and what will fuel it?

Most likely it will be a coal, oil or natural gas power plant, since they are the most readily available and traditional sources.

• Does the 2^nd amendment of the US Constitution apply to the individual right of self-defense?

It absolutely does. We have a natural right to life, and we have a right to defend our own lives however we must when the occasion calls for it. Guns provide the best method for doing so, and all of our Founders would agree, that a well-armed society is a polite society. They specifically stated that no move would ever be made to disarm the people, and they were referring specifically to firearms. James Madison himself, the Father of the Constitution, is quoted for saying it thusly;

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed”

Sam Adams similarly stated;

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…”

And of course, Richard Henry Lee, said;

“To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…”

And George Washington said;

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

I would tend to agree with these distinguished gentlemen, and I would never pretend that there is any moral or practical basis to deprive lawful(Constitutionally lawful) citizens of their weapons, and in fact I encourage others to own and carry firearms regularly.

 

• What is your position on right to carry concealed weapons by law abiding citizens and how is your opinion supported by both thought and fact?

Well, a gentleman in a polite society would of course carry his weapons openly. But I realize that we are not exactly living in a very polite society anymore, and there are fewer gentlemen than necessary to make it such a society. So for the time being, I whole-heartedly approve of the right to carry concealed weapons. There should be no need for additional laws regarding this; in fact, I believe that lawful citizens have the right to carry weapons concealed or openly, by virtue of the 2^nd amendment, and these laws and permits are merely the first step in a movement to curtail our natural right of self-defense and maintaining arms. We should repeal them entirely. Every citizen should be free to carry and use weapons legally until they as an individual have been found guilty of committing unethical behavior with them.

• Why do bills that reflect the majority sentiment of the voters seem to prosper in the house and languish or die in the Senate; thinking of Kansas to be the 48^th state in the union to allow concealed carry…

Once again I’d say there is a disconnect between the people and their representatives in the Senate… and certain members of the Senate clearly do not have a good understanding or strong affection for the Bill of Rights or the natural rights of our citizens. I’d say the solution is to vote out all the moderates and leftists, and replace them with real Conservative Libertarians.

• What is your voting record and position as it relates to the life and rights of unborn children?

I have not had the opportunity to vote on this issue yet, but I have signed pro-life petitions. I know that I would never vote for any program or act which would promote the agenda of abortion and infanticide. I would never give funding to any programs which engage in these activities. More than that, I would speak out against them and write new bills and acts to drive them out of our state. I would do this if I were to win my election, but otherwise, I can only continue to speak out against these things and gather others to our cause.

• On what basis of reason does one “settle” law? What is “settled law” anyway and why after reading/watching the last 250 years of courts cases would we think that law could be “settled”? And if law can be settled, how does a law espousing privacy, a minor undeclared right in the Constitution, settle into a position trumping over the major declared right in the Constitution upon which all other rights rest; life?

A law is settled when it is made, if it is in fact a moral law. If it is not moral, then it can never be settled. It can only exist through force and fraud. And the laws which have the highest morality, are the ones which have the highest power and precedent. Therefore, any immoral law which seeks to mock, overturn or circumvent an already established moral law, is not valid and is in fact totally null and void, and has no power whatsoever.

• Why you? Considering all of the issues we have discussed; what will you bring to the office that people should remember when going to the polling place?

I would say I’m the best for the task because I’m the least arrogant and the least imposing of our current politicians. I have a completely different philosophy than that of my opponent. I don’t believe in force or coercion, and I don’t believe in assumed authority or rule. I believe that a Republican form of government represents the people, but does not rule over them.

Other politicians, my opponent included I think… are simply taking positions on circumstance, and their ethics are highly flimsy and relative. My positions are refined as clearly as I can make them, relying upon universal principles and the teachings of men far greater and far wiser than me. All of the great teachers in human history have always attempted to give us a code of ethics which would promote peace and prosperity for all people. And universally, they all stressed the importance of the Golden Rule and non-aggression. Well, as George Washington said, government is simply force, and we should never allow that force to be directed at our own citizens, no matter the reason for it. We should never initiate force against our fellow man, we should only use force or violence in self defense and when it is absolutely necessary to protect our lives and our way of life.

I have the most essential ideas to offer, at our present time and circumstance… I want to remove the government entirely from the churches, and I want to enhance the freedom of choice in education. I want to eliminate un-Constitutional laws and mandates, and I want to institute a Constitutional Sheriff Program here in the state of Kansas, requiring all law enforcement to attend it. That would immediately make us much safer and freer as a society. I also want to lower taxation and cut spending, which I believe is a necessity at this point.