I would love to visit your website but I don’t see a link.

Your point is well made and if you had ever taken the time to visit my website, you would see that I agree with you. I believe in common sense solutions, not ideologically opposing positions of liberal vs. conservative.

In fact, I am not opposed to regulation. That is exactly what our government needs to do in many cases because as individuals, we cannot. What our politicians should not do is engage in activities best left to the private sector.

My position on healthcare best illustrates this concept. I propose regulations that will give consumers truly educated options (you can read the whole thing on the site), but it is not the job of government to provide single payer (government) health care.

Similarly with education. All options including vouchers and home schooling ought to be available instead of the NEA dominated one size school fits all. The teachers however, seek to promote their profession and their salaries. The socialist minded elites in politics of course, go along.

I think you greatly misunderstand my positions on many issues. Not only do I believe that the two parties have created their virtual lock on power by promoting the idea that they are the only choice and we must vote the lesser of two evils, but I also expose their false ideological division of the American people into conservatives vs. liberals. It is what allows them to stay in power. If we actually consider our own personal lives, we would see how often the decisions we make for ourselves and our families are not just liberal or consrvative, but (hopefully) choices based upon common sense.

My campaign is not some conservative backlash at the GOP. I am opposed to both parties for their lies and the manner in which they pursue power at all costs. A competent federal govt. would be as you describe, i.e., keeping a sharp eye on the corporations because it is their job to do so, it is one of the things we need them for. They however seek power first, and from that follows partisanship, and so on.

It might surprise you if you actually went to the website to find out that we probably have a lot more in common than you think.

If you recall, that was the point I made earlier about the Miranda rights. Abuse of people that were arrested led to the ruling.

However, we are looking at regulation at the national level when it should be, for the most part, at the state level with attorney generals like the one in New York and others that used the legal system to send people to prison for violations.

Each state is a “nation” in the sense it has a different culture, needs, resources, demographics, etc. The nations that are coming out of communism are moving to decentralization and deregulation at the national level but they aren’t ending common sense about the potential for abuse.

However, you have to remember that even before the time period you mentioned, we had national restrictions on monopolies. Right now, however, we don’t have the policies that allow competition with or without monopoly laws.

We have a nation that is so uncompetitive that only the largest, already established, international businesses can survive. Saying you don’t want a monopoly and then having such bad system of tax and compliance that nobody can start up and compete doesn’t make sense.

That is what happens in socialist nations. They end up with the state controlling industry to such an extent that only the biggest can survive. Then the “elite” that run those companies, because the government depends on them, end up subsidizing them, propping them up with government contracts, exempting them from taxes or regulations to keep from losing them and the jobs they provide, etc. to where they end up worse of the people of the nation than what they were trying to avoid.

If you have 10 companies that do the same thing and compete and each employ 1,000 and one of them breaks the rules and need to be closed, you only lose 1,000 jobs and they will probably cause the other 9 to expand and take them in as their employees.

But, if you have only one company able to afford the regulations and tax compliance doing the same with 10,000 employees, you don’t want to close it. So you bribe and threaten and subsidize and exempt to keep the business from going overseas. Yet, that is exactly what we create when we try to tax and regulate from the national level more than from the state level.

In a Republic, states competing with states create a much better economy for the nation as a whole than a national system does. Yes, there are problems but there are more problems with centralizing power than with the inequities of competing states.

The European Union has passed us in GDP. They have “states” with separate economies, governments, trade policies, taxes, regulations, etc. But, that competition is starting to improve all of them as they have to fight to keep business competitive and in their country employing their citizens. At the same time they are becoming more competitive with each other, they are becoming more competitive with Asia. The tax reforms going on in virtually every nation of Europe is making it much better at competing with all nations, including us. They used to have higher taxes than us on business now we are tied for top place with Japan and they are in the tank too.

Yes, Europe is still an economic basket case and they may be dragged down with us if we fall but, they at least were headed in the right direction if that does happen and I think some will do much better than we do in the coming crisis.

What’s more patently socialist:

A “public assistance program” or a “war on drugs”?

They are building 40 nuclear power plants so they aren’t dependent on coal, gas or oil for electrical production as well as, some very large hydro electric projects.. They are using solar hot water heaters and currently have 850,000 people employed across China installing them so electric supply lines aren’t needed for homes to have hot water. They are leading in research now, I believe, but if not leading, close to it, in hybrid vehicles.

In other words they are rapidly finding ways to reduce the dependence on energy sources that aren’t renewable. If they are successful, they may be able to extend their industrial life or, if they like most industrial societies increase wealth, export the technology to where industry moves to.

That was the belief here. We told our workers not to worry about manufacturing leaving because we were “educated” and would always be a leader in high tech, financial services and R&D. Now, all of that is leaving as well because we didn’t reform our government business policies, debt, spending and foreign policy practices.

This idea that capitalist industry will self-regulate is laughable.

This is especially true when the industry owners are completely dislocated from the resulting externalities (pollution, poverty, unemployment, etc.)

What do we care if Southeast Asian forests are decimated to meet demand for exotic wood products? We (U.S. consumers) only care if this activity results in an unacceptable loss of U.S. jobs.

The cry for strong social programs is a PRODUCT of your brand of extreme capitalsim.

The answer to the abuses of the elites is not LESS regulation, for crying out loud. By calling for less regulation, you are doing their work!

The counter balance is a return to post-Great Depression era regulations that created the middle class prosperity we all look back at fondly (and the presence of which lessen’s the need for strong social programs).

Markets, production, and the economomy don’t EXIST without regulation, and you’re screwing it all up by fighting against regulation everywhere you find it.

Fight in favor of restoring balance, not eliminating all regulation, then you will start solving problems instead of creating them.

If you believe there is any merit in the Olduvai theory, then the rules of the game will change significantly over next two decades.

Localization will be the name of the game.

To begin with, Communism is not exactly dead, but more to the point, I never stated that the elites who promote the Democratic Socialism of the EU are promoting communism.

The official definition of socialism maybe the control of manufacturing and proiduction by the state, but that meaning has evolved into a something new. The socialistic future that the elites intend to create has more to do with controlling behavior than controlling production.

They have become smart enough to see that letting some private enterprise flourish and do the hard work is easier than doing it themselves. It is much easier to regulate and tax industry rather than compete.

Therefor, I am right up to date in my interpretation of events. The new world order vision of the elites seeks not to control production, but to regulate and tax it. Their ultimate goal is to control the people and usher in a utopian paradise where everyone is perfectly equal. That does not mean equal before the law as in our Constitution, but equal in outcome, in how life affects us all.

It is too bad you missed the main point because my basic argument is true. America has moved left and there is now a political void on the right for the defense of freedom, true freedom unencumbered by the rules of the elites!