Posted under Conservatism & Constitution Party & Election 2012 & Free Trade & Immigration & Political Philosophy & Republican Party
Here is Roy Moore on the issue. (This will take you to the main page where you can click on issues. It is a page within a page so it doesn’t have a separate URL.) There is very little here to object to. I think he is easily the most “paleoish” candidate so far. You can read his issues yourself, but here are some highlights.
He addresses trade specifically which should warm paleo hearts.
We also need to return American manufacturing to our Country by revoking unfair free trade agreements which have severely damaged our economy through loss of jobs and skill development. We need the phrase Made in America to mean something again.
On immigration.
We must stop the flow of illegal aliens across both our northern and southern borders. Open borders are a threat to our national security and to our economy. We must allow willing states (like Arizona) to do their own job of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
On the military he takes a typical “strong defense” stand, rhetoric which is unfortunate but probably a necessary condition of entry into a Republican primary.
As a former military officer, Vietnam veteran, and graduate of West Point, I believe in a strong military defense, and I have always been a strong advocate for the men and women who now serve in the Armed Forces. More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to bring back our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines and Coast Guard to the most modern technological advances including weapon systems.
But this is better.
Only in dire emergencies should a President as Commander-in-Chief employ the use of arms as set forth in the War Powers Clause. In all other cases action by Congress is required under the Constitution.
And this is highly encouraging.
America should serve as a good example to other nations, not as a police force to force our will upon others. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. Respect for our strength is our best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should be our guide. We should not be subject to UN control and direction and should not rely or support UN treaties like LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty), Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Kyoto Protocol, which Barack Obama unsuccessfully tried to force on our Country. Such treaties only undermine our sovereignty as a nation. We must stand strongly with our allies and act with authority and discipline with those who would undermine and destroy our national security. We must maintain a strong nuclear defense and not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which will leave us vulnerable to foreign powers.
roho on 21 Apr 2011 at 12:33 pm #
Sounds good with the exception of expanding the military. At $500 billion a year, our military is bloated beyond need, and needs downsizing. But, then I believe in downsizing City, County, State, and Federal Government drasticaly at all levels.
And I love Rand Paul’s no hesitation on eliminating ALL foreign aid including Israel!(I will again vote Ron or Rand.)
Kirt Higdon on 21 Apr 2011 at 3:14 pm #
Just what we need – another big spending posturing militarist. He must be kidding about the need to spend still more money to assure our armed forces of the most modern technological advances, including weapons systems. US killing technology is so far beyond that of the rest of the world that we must seem to them like invaders from another galaxy. To the extent that anyone respects the US, it is for our strength – certainly not for our non-existent national wisdom or virtue. I too will be sticking with Ron Paul.
RedPhillips on 21 Apr 2011 at 5:24 pm #
The “strong military” posturing is problematic, but could be just that, posturing. I am also concerned about the reference to “allies.” I’ll have more to say about this separately.
But here is what I find encouraging. I had never heard Roy Moore speak on foreign policy. In fact, when his name was brought up as a possible CP nominee in ’08 I investigated his foreign policy views and could find no tell tale statements. But I was pretty confident he would be a non-interventionist, because it is part of a predictable issues cluster. For people who consciously consider themselves “far right” (for lack of a better term), non-interventionism has become the default position. This is a point I tried over and over to make to Alan Keyes supporters in ’08 to little avail. They couldn’t get it through their heads that the CP wasn’t just the GOP but moreso. Among the self-identified “far right,” there is simply no breathing room for interventionism. People who consider themselves “more conservative” than the mainstream on the basis of their greater hawkishness are still firmly in the tank for the GOP.
So while Roy Moore likely feels the need to rhetorically endorse a strong military and a need to support our “allies” so as to not totally alienate a large portion of the GOP primary base, he clearly realizes he can’t be a run-of-the-mill interventionist and maintain his base of the “far right.” Remember that Roy Moore is not just competing for the “far right” niche, but also the “values voters” many of whom supported Huckabee in ’08 and many of whom are likely very supportive of Israel. He is not just competing against Ron Paul for the “extremist” vote, but also Bachmann, Santorum, Cain and maybe Huckabee for the outsider, non-establishment “ultra-conservative” vote. So here Moore clearly feels that the “far right” need to be non-interventionist outweighs the “values voter” need to endorse militarism in the Middle East.
(I write this as if Roy Moore’s positions are entirely politically calculated. I don’t believe that, I’m just did that for the sake of illustration. I am sure he takes positions as a matter of principle, and I am sure his embrace of non-interventionism is genuine. But I do think his rhetorical nod to strong defense and “allies” is a matter of political necessity so I wouldn’t read too much into it.)
What is clear is that non-interventionists have but two choices so far, Ron Paul and Roy Moore. Roy Moore may be a more comfortable choice for paleos who are uncomfortable with Paul’s philosophical libertarianism on trade, immigration and gays in the military.
roho on 21 Apr 2011 at 11:44 pm #
Red………….I wish all our miltary was gay and their guns jammed?……….Ha-Ha!
Sandra Coulbourne on 30 Apr 2011 at 3:30 am #
Moore’s prior reluctance may now be overshadowed by a recent prospective CP nominee consideration. This is a copy of the letter I obtained which was sent to Clymer. Thought’s anyone?
James N. Clymer, Esq.,
National Chairman, Constitution Party
P.O. Box 1782
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17608
Subject: 2012 Presidential Election Nomination
Chairman Clymer:
As you are well aware, never before in United States history has an independent candidate had a better chance of being elected to public office than in the forthcoming 2012 elections. Dissatisfaction among the voting public, especially the middle-class who bears the brunt of government-imposed burden, present a unique opportunity for the Constitution Party. And this last holds particularly true when independent voters represent 47% of the voting party and disenfranchisement among Republican and Democratic voters are at an all-time high.
Indeed, the American public has grown weary of “professional career politicians” and political parties whom place their own agenda’s over that of this country’s citizens. Will the Constitution Party rise to the challenge posed in 2012? Not so if it, like the Republicans, follows the tradition of picking party veterans who wait their turn and earn their nominations after years spent as candidates for governors, senators or vice presidents.
What then for the Constitution Party? Consider the prospect of a middle-class presidential candidate, an actual man of the people, and a forceful figure to confront the present presidential incumbent on health care, spending and other issues. A Constitution Party presidential candidate who has devised three means of generating government funds which do not require the taxation of any individual, corporation, or consumer product. One possessing a common sense approach to reaching answers and solutions — and implementing those policies — with the overall goal of strict government fiscal responsibility while also ensuring the personal safety and financial security of our citizens.
Lastly, ask now when was the last time a Kennedy walked the hallowed halls of the White House? A presidential candidate whom possesses those specific traits which endeared the 35th President to the American public. A candidate who can embolden with their words and who’s charismatic style can appeal to the masses more and draw people in. One having a compelling vision of the future of America; a competent personal decision making style; and delegates with an eye to his political control. And, most importantly of all, a presidential candidate who can restore trust and integrity in government and its elected officials.
In sum, to invent a successful, coherent political vision in this age that still is simple and memorable has now matured to a very difficult challenge. But to echo JFK: “Let us not shrink from that challenge in leadership – let’s welcome it”. The 2012 presidential nominee has a duty not only to renew faith and accountability to the American public — but accept the responsibility for the public’s civic education. Similarly, the party’s candidate must further reconstruct the American democracy in a bold and lasting manner, taking decisive action in the face of crisis without guidance from the people, and reconcile the need for change with American constitutional traditions and purposes.
Thus said, it is for these foregoing reasons which I seek consideration for the Constitution Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. To this extent, attached as Appendix A, is a general synopsis of legislative measures to address major domestic issues currently presented.
Sincerely,
Michael Kennedy
33250 Old Ocean City Road
Salisbury, Maryland 21849
Note: Phone numbers redacted by Editor.
Attachment
- Appendix A -
I. Revenue Generation Act (“RGA”):
The proposed legislative law would serve to implement three separate devised methods to generate federal revenue which do not require the taxation of any individual, corporation, or consumer product. Funds generated during each fiscal year would then be applied toward the next fiscal year, with 75% of those funds applied toward reducing the national deficit and the remaining 25% utilized to supplement budgetary requirements.
II. Reformed American Health Act (“RAHA”):
The proposed bill would reform the present health care law to result in affordable health insurance for all Americans by (1) basing yearly contribution costs on a 2% ratio of an individual/joint gross annual income; (2) augmentation of tax credits to medical care providers to promote continued competition and competitive industry pricing; and (3) eliminate present government mandated healthcare enrollment.
III. Employment Reform Act (“ERA”):
The proposed legislature is designed to promote the return of American industry and business through (1) aggressive tax reform which promotes solid long term growth and jobs; (2) by promoting attractive trade agreements inducing foreign corporations to establish United States manufacturing facilities; (3) a further opening of foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad; (4) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (5) increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit and welfare-to-work tax credit.
IV. National Alien Immigration Law (“NAIL”):
The proposed law would require all illegal aliens presently in the United States to report their presence to area INS offices within 120 days after the effective date of enactment. An additional 120 days would be granted following INS notification to allow aliens to put their personal affairs in order, then be required to report to a designated port of entry for voluntary deportation. Specifics of the law would include, but not be limited to:
(1) Amnesty from criminal prosecution only to the extent of the instant violation for which they are being deported.
(2) Deportee’s would:
(a) be allowed to complete applications for citizenship prior to actual deportation; and,
(b) receive vestment of funds, if any, paid into SSI/FICA contributions; and,
(c) receive work history stability credit consideration in reference to their citizenship application; and,
(d) in such cases where a child has been born in the United States during the period of illegal residency, the natural parents will be deported, but be granted work permits within a specified radius during the pendency of their citizenship application; and,
(e) limit family reunification to spouses and minor children of legal immigrants; and,
(f) require restitution of all state and/or federal assistance obtained during their period of illegal residency prior to the granting of citizenship status.
(3) Impose upon the date of enactment a mandatory 1st offense sentence of 3-years for illegal entry; a mandatory 5-year sentence for the 2nd offense; and a mandatory 10-year sentence for the 3rd offense.
(4) Impose a mandatory $10,000 fine, for each individual offense, upon any company and/or employer utilizing undocumented workers in their labor force.
(5) Prohibit the issuance to illegal aliens of any federal, state, or local identification to include driver’s licenses.
(6) Deny citizenship applications for a period of ten-years to any illegal alien convicted of a federal, state, or local offense, to include spousal abuse or violation of court protective orders, committed during their period of illegal residency.
V. Other Policy Reform Issues:
(a) Implementing a mandatorily limited three-year government controlled nationwide ceiling cap on fuel prices and energy price related speculation. Implementation of foreign trade agreements for government procurement of crude oil at a set wholesale price, with government resale to American petroleum corporations at a rate less than world market prices.
(b) Establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment.
(c) Revision of asset seizure policies to require every federal law enforcement agencies to contribute 50% of its criminal asset seizures to the SSI fund.
(d) Provide families facing home foreclosure with low interest government loans and financial advisement assistance. Secondly, to focus on banks’ actual service delivery, rather than on compliance efforts, and increase mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income families by 40 percent in the first fiscal year by lenders subject to law.
(e) Block all remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) funds earmarked by Congress to subsidize major corporations and make those funds more readily available to small business with the stipulation that a portion of those funds be utilized for new employee hiring.
(f) Reduction of taxes for low and middle-class families and/or individuals earning less than $250,000 individual or collective income. Secondly, provide an additional taxpayer stimulus credit of $2,500 per person regardless of 2012 filing status.
(g) Elimination and/or consolidation of certain federal agencies. Secondly, to require all federal agencies submit proposed annual budgets to the executive office for review and approval prior to congressional submission.
(h) Revision of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (“CARD”) of 2009 to provide increased consumer protection and decreased interest rates by TARP recipients.
(i) Require all U.S. corporations to meet standards in human rights, labor laws, and environmental laws.
Steve Stockman is Considering Running for Ron Paul’s Seat | Conservative Heritage Times on 15 Jul 2011 at 1:15 am #
[...] As I have said before, I’m not crazy about the “strong military” language, but that is likely the price you have to pay to be competitive in a GOP primary. Your not likely to go very far in a GOP primary suggesting we dismantle our standing army and return to well-regulated state militias. But Stockman is about as close to Ron Paul as we are likely to get. So I hope he does well. | | | | | | [...]