Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember rightey tightey, lefty loosey. 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.

No. 3: (11/12/08): Was the US founded as a Christian Country?

I have been hearing constantly lately about the back and forth between the left and the right whether the United States of America, was or was not founded as a Christian nation. I believe that much of the argument and where you come down on it is based on semantics and your understanding of the establishment clause in the context of the day. If you assume by Christian nation, you’re referring to modern day Evangelicalism, then no, it was absolutely not founded as a Christian nation. If you assume by “Christian nation” as the founders would have that it was founded upon the accepted doctrine of the Church of England and meant to be run as a theocracy then again no, it was not.

Many of the Founding Fathers were by no means “orthodox” Christians by the standards of the day, in fact many were openly Deists. But even the Deists among them recognized God as being the God of the Christian bible. I have not read any original material, correspondences etc. that denied their belief in God but rather sought to defend against state endorsed/mandated religion (directed towards the Church of England) warning of oppression at their hands when endorsed and supported by the state.

I part ways with the Evangelicals where they insist that the country was founded as an Evangelical Christian country. It clearly was not founded to be a theocratic country, but I don’t believe that it was purely secular either. If they truly did not believe in God, then there would be no reference to a Creator, nor would there be inalienable rights. Rights that are given to man by a “Creator” cannot be taken away from men; only rights given by men can be taken away or restricted by man or the state. Sessions of congress and the constitutional conventions were opened and closed with prayer, including on occasion by Franklin (one of the most ardent Deists) hardly an act that would have been practiced by Agnostics or Atheists.
The next question would then be what is the nature of the Creator that they reference?
It is clear that no specific name was given to the Creator (to their credit) i.e. Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu etc. Given though, that they were by a large majority if not all, Christians, Deists or Quakers, their consensus of understanding would have been that the Creator they refer to would have the nature of the “Christian” God.

I do however agree with the secularists that a very, very bright line must be drawn lest we allow Christianity to become the American Sharia. Advocating that our government should be run as though the Bible was the source of our laws, morals and principles would be partially correct but only in respect to how the Bible has influenced western society.

The majority of Colonial law at the time was based on the Common Law of England which was clearly theocratic in its practice of the day. The Magna Carta had enormous impact on the English Bill of Rights, Mayflower Compact as well as the Articles of Confederation, and of course the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Judeo-Christian beliefs and the natural law philosophies formed the cornerstone of the English monarchy and its law, and so by extension, the United States.

A common complaint in regards to religions is that “you have no right to expect that I’m going to let my government operate as if it has chosen a religion and wants everyone else to do the same” or that based on the prohibition.

We are in a republic which means that to a certain extent as a minority must accept as both a practical reality and a Constitutional reality that some beliefs will be “thrown in your face”.
In my reading there is no Constitutional prohibition against one that “includes the right to not have it thrown in our faces everywhere we go by the government.” Government is the organizational expression of the people and as long as a sentiment or right is the will of the majority it must be expressed so long as it does not infringe on a minority’s right to change the will of the majority either through free press, free speech or petition. I must respectfully disagree with you that the government’s current expression of religion constitutes an establishment of an official religion the likes of the Church of England that can be used as a legal club against you by the government.

None of the Founding Fathers spoke out against religion as having a right to free speech or participating or influencing government or the electorate at large. What they all agreed on that could not happen is political rule from the pulpit. It was perfectly acceptable at the founding for churches to use speech and collective power to influence members who were then free to go and act accordingly in a political sense. What was not acceptable would be for church inspired speech to be deemed more weighty then that of a non-believer. Equally unacceptable would be for the government to create, fund and support a specific church (i.e. Church of England) to go forth and proselytize/demonize in the name of the State.

In terms of references to In God We Trust on money and God in the Pledge of Allegiance, these are actually neutral as is any Congressional or Presidential proclamations. Take for instance, Veteran’s Day. If you are a pacifist and do not condone the taking of arms or recognize the use of arms as moral under any circumstances, are your civil rights violated because Congress made it a federal holiday?

You are equally able to express your beliefs on this day as any other day of the year. You are not imprisoned, you are not taxed at a different rate, your votes do not only count as 3/4 of a vote, etc. The majority of Americans however feel it is appropriate to officially commemorate the service of Veteran’s to their country. If you are Atheist and do not believe that God should be officially recognized in any sense, are you prohibited from using minted currency or any of the above examples? If I despise my mother, are my rights violated because of a Congressional proclamation for Mother’s Day? The foundation of America as democratic form of a republic, was to ensure the will of the majority must be the primary outward expression of the government, and in its genius, the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, ensures and charges the government to just as vigorously defend the rights of the minority.

To those who advocate a complete seperation and removal of God or influence of religion from the public place, remember that the rule of unintended consequences. Under a rule of absolutism it would mean that Evangelicals insisting that student led prayer or a moment of silence in school would be as verboten as Dr. Martin Luther King, using his pulpit and religious networks to preach civil rights not only as a matter of a political right but also a spiritual mandate of the Christian faith. I see no attempts by the ACLU to remove copies of “I Have a Dream” speech which makes numerous religious references from schools or Martin Luther King Day as a Federal holiday which honors not just a civil rights leader but a religious leader as well.

No. 2: (11-11-08) What is Your Position on California's Prop 8?

Lets call a spade a spade, two sides of the pro-homosexual marriage has arguments that conflict with each other. One claims it is it isn't about politics or anything else except love and that it’s not redefining the definition of marriage. Others claim that marriage isn’t strictly all about love, its also about the legal status of marriage which is just that — a legal status. A ballot measure has the force of law which is defining a legal status. The argument about love and spiritual connection, is a spiritual argument which would more aptly be directed towards clergy in an ecclesiastical debate rather than a political one. If it is about love then do bigamists not love just as genuinely as homosexuals? Defining love in a legal manner is completely spurious effort as love is a completely subjective definition based on your personal interpretation.

If we as a society decide not to confer legal benefits of marriage on members of a bigamist relationship, on what grounds do we do so? If we say because they have no Constitutional right to engage in bigamy, what is the Constitutional right to a heterosexual marriage with legal status? I see nothing in the Federalist Papers, Constitution or the subsequent Amendments that either defines marriage or confers a right to marry (outside of a religious practice) and for the government confer certain legal benefits on them.

If the argument for heterosexual marriage is that at the time of the founding, that this was the accepted expression and that legal status should be conferred on marriage, then so be it, but that became a statutory right not a Constitutional right. If people determine that as a whole they do not see a sufficient need or value in extending rights of marriage to in terms of a legal status, then that is a right reserved to the people.

Our laws are designed to allow discrimination all the time when the people determine that the societal value of the discrimination is deemed to outweigh the persons or class discriminated against. Felons are discriminated against holding public office or owning firearms. Sex offenders are discriminated against by not having freedom to associate and interact with children. Non-licensed individuals are discriminated against by being restricted to practice law or medicine. Former employees are discriminated against by non-compete agreements with former employers. But again, what is the overriding social need and justification to confer the legal status of marriage on homosexuals as opposed to bigamists?

I still don't understand though why 2 people getting married who are gay is a right and 3 people getting married heterosexual or otherwise is illegal in the context of California’s Prop 8. If two (or 3 or more) people getting married is about legal status then lets treat it as contractual law. If it’s about love and a spiritual connection and commitment, then let's treat it as spiritual matter and let churches decided what it is.

As I said, either we uphold the traditional definition with a Constitutional Amendment, or we must rework the entire legal construct of marriage (outside of religious practices) and establish an objective determination of the purpose of marriage and societal benefits and secondly the objective criterion upon which we must confer legally sanctioned marriages and apply the standards evenly with no regard for religious beliefs or sexual orientation. In other words, marriage must become a branch of contractual law defining fiduciary duties of partners etc. and not a matter of civil rights law and dissolution of a marriage should take the form of dissolution of a company.

As this begins to become more and more a wedge us versus them issue, I would like to take it completely out of the power of the courts to decide this issue. I think marriage should be redefined and marriages can be religiously sanctioned relationships and civil unions can be legal constructs defined by the States and the Federal government. Thereby religious interpretations and definitions of marriage are removed from political discourse and do not risk law suits for refusing to perform a “marriage” that does not comport to their ecclesiastical beliefs.

The issue of marriage may be the biggest over looked separation of church and state issue there is. As it stands and for the past 200 years marriage has been a hybrid of legal and societal values and religious values and inextricably linked and to alter one is necessarily to alter another. I’m sure there was much anger in the south during the civil rights revolution whereby race could no longer prohibit people from getting married. Today a very small minority (between 2% and 4.2% depending on your source) of the American population is being discriminated against in being prohibited from getting married. The difference between blacks being able to marry and gays being able to marry is the difference between racism and the collective traditions of western religion and society in which the definition of marriage has not included homosexuality. Racism defies the Constitution the collective traditions of western religion and society do not. In an age of all or nothing absolutism I believe we should redefine marriage.

What the judge down the street should be able to do as an officer of the State is to perform a civil union. The people of your state should determine who may qualify for a civil union and what benefits and rights that entails. Free from claims of Constitutional rights, as what rights a State chooses to confer upon its people is a decision of that State so long as they are not enumerated by the Constitution.

What your religious leader should be able to do is perform a wedding ceremony to those persons who adhere to the tenants of their faith without worry that if they refuse to perform a homosexual or polygamist wedding, they could be sued for violating someone's civil rights or lose their tax exempt status. Marriage is a sacrament in the religious context and should remain so, just as a Church may decide who qualifies to be ordained, who may take communion or be baptized, without fear of legal action.

Happy 223rd Marines! Semper Fi - A Message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps

During the summer of 1982, in the wake of a presidential directive, Marines went ashore at Beirut, Lebanon. Fifteen months later, on 23 October 1983, extremists struck the first major blow against American forces - starting this long war on terrorism. On that Sunday morning, a suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden truck into the headquarters of Battalion Landing Team 1/8, destroying the building and killing 241 Marines and corpsmen.

Extremists have attacked our Nation, at home and abroad, numerous times since that fateful day in Beirut. Their aim has always been the same - to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. The attacks of 11 September 2001 changed our Nation forever, and our president has resolved that this Nation will not stand idle while murderous terrorists plan their next strike. Marines will continue to take the fight to the enemy - hitting them on their own turf, crushing them when they show themselves, and finding them where they hide.

Only a few Americans choose the dangerous, but necessary, work of fighting our Nation's enemies. When our chapter of history is written, it will be a saga of a selfless generation of Marines who were willing to stand up and fight for our Nation; to defend those who could not defend themselves; to thrive on the hardship and sacrifice expected of an elite warrior class; to march to the sound of the guns; and to ably shoulder the legacy of those Marines who have gone before.

On our 233rd birthday, first remember those who have served and those "angels" who have fallen - our reputation was built on their sacrifices. Remember our families; they are the unsung heroes whose support and dedication allow us to answer our Nation's call. Finally, to all Marines and Sailors, know that I am proud of you and what you do. Your successes on the battlefield have only added to our illustrious history. Lieutenant General Victor H. "Brute" Krolak said it best when he wrote, "...the United States does not need a Marine Corps ... the United States wants a Marine Corps." Your actions, in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the globe, are at the core of why America loves her Marines.

Happy Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fidelis,

James T. Conway
General, U.S. Marine Corps

Petition to the FEC for an Audit of Barack Obama's Campaign

This is by no means meant to be a partisan petition. This is watchdogging pure and simple. I absolutely support McCain's campaign being audited. I think that despite his opting out of the campaign finance system, Obama's campaign should be subjected to the same rigorous review. The text and link to the petion can be found below:

We the undersigned hereby believe it necessary and petition the FEC to conduct full audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering $650 millon dollar windfall based on numerous allegations of questionable donations, donations from foreign nationals and accounting issues.

President-Elect Obama initially pledged to the American people in 2007 Obama filled out questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network that asked, "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama's answer? A check next to the box marked "yes." Underneath, the Illinois senator elaborated:

"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

In June 2008, he completely reversed himself saying: "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections..."

In a letter to Senators Feinstein Senator Bennett in June 2007, then Senator Obama referring to an upcoming FEC Commissioner appointment the Commission, noting that the FEC should demonstrate a consistent ability to uphold the law and overcome partisan biases and should reflect a record of nonpartisanship, fairness, and judgment necessary to enforce election laws."The FEC is an independent regulatory agency tasked with the enforcement and administration of the Federal Election Commission Act. Individuals named to the Commission should have a demonstrated record of fair administration of the law and an ability to overcome partisan biases."

President-Elect Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny Sen. McCain faces mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Additionally the conventional wisdom is that because the FEC is made up of 3 Democrat and 3 Republican Commissioners, it will deadlock and no audit will take place.

President-Elect Obama publically supported a publically financed campaign system until it was no longer in his financial interests to do so despite a pledge to fellow Democrats, Sen. McCain and all Americans that he would participate. The potential technical difficulties should not outweigh the public interest in auditing a record breaking $650 million dollar campaign. No future presidential candidate will subject themselves to a system where if you participate you are audited, if you raise too much money for the FEC to audit, they won't.

The FEC must scrutinize President-Elect Obama just as thoroughly as independently as they will Sen. McCain. This is not only reasonable to the American people, but in President-Elect Obama's own words, the FEC should "demonstrate a consistent ability to uphold the law and overcome partisan biases and should reflect a record of nonpartisanship, fairness, and judgment necessary to enforce election laws."

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AuditObama

Q&A - Questions from the Audience No.1

No. 1: (11-10-08) Should the U.S. be attacking al Qaeda in foreign countries without permission?

First off, I believe neither the War Power Acts nor Congressional Defense Authorizations are sufficient to deal with this problem either in a diplomatic, military or legal sense. Continuing with the current method will not lend any credibility to military and foreign policy. We need a national debate that will set long term military and diplomatic policies regarding terrorism and pre-emptive use of force. I do want to begin this discussion by saying that in the case of an imminent threat, when there is sufficient actionable intelligence, I of course advocate the President using all available resources to thwart an attack be it terrorist or otherwise. In the case where the foreign government is either hostile or suffers from security leaks that could compromise American lives a successful execution, diplomacy would have to wait.

If in the situation where an act of terrorism is initiated by an independent, unaffiliated terrorist or terrorist group, I think the first goal is to work diplomatically and allow the host nation to take care of business quietly and behind the scenes. If they will not I think the President has the statutory and Constitutional authority to initiate a surgical operation using the CIA and/or Military Special Operations.

In the case of the Taliban, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia etc. whose governments that are either actively supporting or tacitly providing safe harbors towards terrorist networks or affiliated terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda should be put on notice by the United States by a formal Declaration of War against the terrorist organization. This allows a full and public debate in Congress imposing strict accountability of those in favor and against, there will be a greater likelihood of diplomatic means being exhausted and far more consistency in policy both by the initiating President as well as future Presidents. No more subjective policing actions. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Somalia, Balkans, Gulf War II and the War on Terror were unconstitutional wars and never should have been allowed to happen in the manner they did.

The ability to engage in military action for extended engagements (note the difference between the above actions and actions in Grenada, Panama Canal and Libya) has been abused in a bipartisan manner by Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Clinton and Bush all relying on UN Security Counsel Resolutions. It’s a ceding of Congressional authority allowing an Executive power grab that is been useful for Presidents seeking politically expedient military quick fixes and useful for Congressmen who have sought plausible deniability allowing them to vote for something before they vote against it. Clearly defined Congressional oversight and an end to ad-hoc diplomatic, foreign and national security policy is the third rail answer to the question.

Happy 223rd Marines! Semper Fi - A Message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps

During the summer of 1982, in the wake of a presidential directive, Marines went ashore at Beirut, Lebanon. Fifteen months later, on 23 October 1983, extremists struck the first major blow against American forces - starting this long war on terrorism. On that Sunday morning, a suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden truck into the headquarters of Battalion Landing Team 1/8, destroying the building and killing 241 Marines and corpsmen.

Extremists have attacked our Nation, at home and abroad, numerous times since that fateful day in Beirut. Their aim has always been the same - to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. The attacks of 11 September 2001 changed our Nation forever, and our president has resolved that this Nation will not stand idle while murderous terrorists plan their next strike. Marines will continue to take the fight to the enemy - hitting them on their own turf, crushing them when they show themselves, and finding them where they hide.

Only a few Americans choose the dangerous, but necessary, work of fighting our Nation’s enemies. When our chapter of history is written, it will be a saga of a selfless generation of Marines who were willing to stand up and fight for our Nation; to defend those who could not defend themselves; to thrive on the hardship and sacrifice expected of an elite warrior class; to march to the sound of the guns; and to ably shoulder the legacy of those Marines who have gone before.

On our 233rd birthday, first remember those who have served and those “angels” who have fallen - our reputation was built on their sacrifices. Remember our families; they are the unsung heroes whose support and dedication allow us to answer our Nation’s call. Finally, to all Marines and Sailors, know that I am proud of you and what you do. Your successes on the battlefield have only added to our illustrious history. Lieutenant General Victor H. “Brute” Krolak said it best when he wrote, “…the United States does not need a Marine Corps … the United States wants a Marine Corps.” Your actions, in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the globe, are at the core of why America loves her Marines.

Happy Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fidelis,

James T. Conway
General, U.S. Marine Corps

Campaign Finance & Election Reform Platform

Everyone knows the system is broken. Everyone knows that safe districts, gerrymandering, thinly veiled issue advertising, and individual candidates raking in over $650 million dollars is wrong. Everyone knows that this election saw the death of the publicy financed presidential campaign system.But how can it be fixed? Well the biggest problem in fixing it is that those who control the safe districts and interest groups and campaign finance collectors have the power but DON'T WANT IT FIXED! If it it ain't broken for them, why fix it? We however, are not them. It is broken and needs to be fixed, and if they refuse to provide the leadership, we will.

"The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." - The Federalist No.39 Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

1. Only US citizens who are 18 or older and who have not had their civil liberties revoked are qualified to vote in Federal elections. To that end, the secretaries of state from the various states will issue Voter Registration Card. Voter registration information may not be accessed by law enforcement for any other purpose than investigating voter fraud issues. The card will pass certain FEC criteria for the following:

Tamper-proof;
Name;
Polling Place;
Unique registration number in bar code format;
Digitized Thumb print;
Signature;
The maximum fee that can be charged for such ID is $5.00

2. The FEC in conjunction with the secretaries of state to continue voter machine technology and upon Congressional approval, Congress shall provide matching funds to the states for improvements in voter machines.

3. Federal Congressional Districts within the states will continue to be based on census data. The secretaries of state will employ the use of a computer software system contracted by the FEC that will scientifically and impartially determine Congressional Districts based solely on geographic boundaries and raw population data provided by the Census Dept. and will eliminate “safe districts” and gerrymandering. Cultural, socio-economic, racial, ethnic or other artificial distinctions are not sufficient reasons for deviation of Congressional Districting.

4. The role of federal elected officials and policy makers is to serve the interests of their constituents and the country in general. To effectively execute this duty, they must rid themselves of conflicts of interest and breaches of the public trust and to restore the confidence in our public institutions.

5. The role of major political parties should be to facilitate the organization, discussion, compromise and passage of legislation and policy, not to shape the country’s polices top down from party elite, powerbrokers and lobbyists.

6. Federal election law amended to prohibit convicted felons from seeking, winning or holding federal office, registration as a lobbyist or hold any other political appointment which requires Senate confirmation, regardless of whether that person is incarcerated or not until such time as that person’s civil rights are restored by either a state or federal court.

7. All federal candidates for President, Congress and Senate must provide to the FEC irrefutable proof of citizenship status or birth which will be made public record (in compliance with HIPPA) and further, all federal candidates must submit to and pass an FBI security check.

8. All federal candidates for President, Congress and Senate must participate in a public financed campaign system. Individual candidates are not restricted on expenditures of their personal finances.

9. The FEC will develop a system for the collections of all campaign contributions which will be designated either as for an individual candidate or a party. All contributions will be disbursed to Presidential and Senate Candidates/political parties on a bi-weekly basis based on aggregate positions of state or national approval rate based scientific polling data from at least five independent sources. Individuals and corporate donors will not be restricted on the amount they contribute. Union contributions will be restricted to use of dues that is specifically authorized by individual union members for political purposes.

10. In the case of Congressional candidates, disbursement of campaign funds will be based on aggregate approval rating data provided by scientific polling data from at three independent local sources.

11. For the purposes of transparency and certification, polling sources must be registered with the FEC and polling methodology shall be public record and free for inspection.

12. This will ensure that it is the message that will be heard and not the favors promised or money exchanged which will allow candidates to compete from across all qualified parties.

13. All qualified candidates/parties will receive an equal amount of funding at the beginning of the respective primaries and general elections. This funding will be provided by surpluses from campaign funds from the previous election cycle. At its inception, funding will be based on the combined reported campaign funds of all qualified candidates/parties which will be a one time expenditure from the general funds of the United States Government.

14. Presidential primaries will take place as regional primaries and will mirror the US Circuit Court districts. The order of the presidential primary regions will be selected at random by the FEC and will be announced on January 21st, following the inauguration.

15. All federal elected officials, appointed judges, military officers (O-5 and above) and other political appointees (including spouses) which receive Senate confirmation, must place all personal securities, business and retirement investments into a blind trust during the tenure of service. Upon retirement, resignation or completion of service, such investments will remain in a blind trust for up to three years based on length of service. This will ensure that conflicts of interest and use of insider knowledge can be avoided to a great extent. These individuals are expected to act as servants of the American people and stewards of the American dream, not to use the federal government to line their pockets during or after their service.

16. All federal elected officials, appointed judges, military officers (O-5 and above) and other political appointees (including spouses) which receive Senate confirmation, upon retirement, resignation or completion of service, shall be prohibited from serving as registered federal lobbyists for a minimum period of four to eight years based on the length service. This will ensure that conflicts of interest and use of insider knowledge, familial bonds and political patronage can be avoided to a great extent. These individuals are expected to act as servants of the American people and stewards of the American dream, not to use the federal government to line their pockets during or after their service.

17. Federal ballots for President, Senate and Congressional candidates shall include a non binding, “None of the above” selection. In the event of a “None of the above” victory on a ballot, the second place vote earner will be deemed to be the winner. The opportunity will still allow voters to vote their conscious without compromising principles or being stuck choosing “the lesser of two evils”. Additionally, a winning vote of “None of the above” will send a message to Congress and the President about the power of their perceived “mandates” and an accurate barometer of the electorate.

18. Constitutional amendment granting the President the line-item veto. Bills must stand or fail on their own merit. Congressmen wanting specific provisions attached to bills must stand up and defend provisions rather than forcing critical legislation to be passed regardless of pork barrel sweeteners that may have been added or legitimate legislation being killed because of strong arm tactics by disgruntled legislators who owe someone a favor.

I Voted Today (Actually Two Days Ago, No Voter Fraud Here)

First off, let me say I am not a politician, I've never held a public office and I don't have a public voting record. From past elections, I could tell you who I voted for in presidential, most senatorial and some congressional races, other than that I didn't really keep track. Something I wish I had done now. None the less, while the fundamental principle in our country is voters having the right to a secret ballot, I've made the decision to post my selections from the 2008 general election from Nevada's 3rd Congressional District. I did as much research as I could on each of the candidates (between a full time job during the day and full time job working home trying to control a household of four - two teenagers included) and voted. While I know posting this could get me in "trouble" with the GOP leadership, because I didn't vote party line, I would rather everyone know how I voted and interact with me as I am rather than pretend to be a lockstep follower.

U.S. President/Vice President

John Mccain/Sarah Palin (R) 410,948 42.65%

3rd Congressional District

Joseph P. Silvestri (L) 10,116 3%

State Senate District 5 (Clark)

Tim Hagan (L) 4,754 4%

State Assembly District 29 (Clark)

Sean M. Fellows (R) 9,978 46%

Justice Of Supreme Court (Nonpartisan)

Seat B

Mary "Kris" Pickering 353,162 42%

Seat D

Thomas Frank Christensen 209,711 25%

District Court Judge (Nonpartisan)

District 8, Department 6

Elissa Cadish 306,689 65%

District 8, Department 7

Robert P. Spretnak 137,865 29%

District 8, Department 8

Josh Kunis 139,383 30%

District 8, Department 10

William D. Kephart 231,150 48%

District 8, Department 12

Kurt Harris 158,150 33%

District 8, Department 14

Chris Davis 197,687 41%

District 8, Department 17

Michael Villani

District 8, Department 22

Susan Johnson 379,797 82%

District 8, Department 23

Stefany Miley 333,500 70%

District 8, Department 25

Kathleen E. Delaney 287,299 62%

Clark County Family Court

Department G

Cynthia "Dianne" Steel 302,401 65%

Department I

Greta G. Muirhead 144,811 32%

Department J

Kenneth E. Pollock 243,755 52%

Department K

Vincent Ochoa 221,333 47%

Department L

Jennifer L. Elliott 331,934 74%

Department N

Mathew Harter 243,365 53%

Department O

Frank P. Sullivan 260,399 55%

Department P

Sandra L. Pomrenze 246,874 53%

Department Q

Bryce C. Duckworth 248,151 53%

Department R

Chuck Hoskin 175,061 38%

Trustee, Clark County School District A (Nonpartisan)

Edward E. Goldman

Henderson Justice Of The Peace (Nonpartisan)Department 3

David Gibson Sr. 46,647 55%

State Questions

No. 1 (Voter Residency)

Yes 433,243 47%

No. 2 (Eminent Domain)

Yes 533,685 61%

No. 3 (Tax Exemptions)

Yes 517,989 60%

No. 4 (Sales Tax Use)

No 527,875 73%

County QuestionNo. 5 (Room Tax)
No 204,591 34%

And So It Begins

Friends, Patriots and Political Malcontents of all Persuasions.

Conventional political wisdom says that campaigns begin the day after the election. That will be one of the rare times I subscribe to the political conventional wisdom. As we have seen tonight this is a historic moment in American history, I'll grant any pundit that, but was it a good moment for America's future? In my heart of hearts, I wish it were but find myself full of trepidation for my country's future. I find myself in a place that I believe many Americans as well as my fellow Nevadans find themselves. We feel something is desperately wrong.

The idea of naming this blog The Third Rail comes from the metaphor in politics to denote an idea or topic that is so "charged" and "untouchable" that any politician or public official who dares to broach the subject would invariably suffer politically. We The People ARE the third rail. When we unite and demand leadership and accountability and responsiveness from our elected officials, we are where all the power is! But as long as we do not demand what is best for America, they have nothing to fear.

We look to Washington for leadership and see no presidential captain at the helm and the congressional crewmen making sure they have reserved spaces on the life rafts for themselves, lobbyists and power brokers first and everyday Americans left to squabble amongst ourselves for the remaining life rings, deck chairs and whatever else will float. Among the majority of Republicans and Democrats, the biggest difference I see is which groups get the pork.

I was recently posed with the question of whether I thought the Republican party was beyond repair and whether I felt that I should leave and focus my efforts elsewhere and maybe come back when it fixes itself or stay and try to help change things from the inside. Its a bit like being in a failed marriage, do you separate and try to work things out from the outside in or do you stay faithful and try to work things from the inside out. Tonight on the heels of an Obama victory and government bailout run amok, I feel a bit like a what a battered spouse must feel. The "neocon" borrow and spend faction of the Republican party, has abused its position and taken advantage of its power. The so called leadership has abandoned the vows it took to the conservative ideals that generated their very own political clout. Perhaps what was ignored in 2006 will now be too big to sweep under the rug.

Which brings me to the point I am now at, do I stay or do I go. Beginning with the renegade campaign of Congressman Ron Paul and seeing a new generation of conservatives asserting themselves such as Michael Steele and others have, it gives me hope that this may be an opportunity to set right the course of the Republican party and return it to its core values and principles. After much soul searching, reflection and prayer, I believe it is an opportunity to take a stand and return the party to the people it claims to represent by running for Congress in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District in 2010.

My platform and beliefs which I will share with you over the coming weeks and months are based on the fundamentals upon which our country was founded, not what is expedient and feels good today and is reported in the latest Zogby poll. I hope to share with you the insights and ideas that come from this journey and your support in both the failures and successes yet to come. The conventional wisdom would say that what I'm attempting to do is destined to defeat, I have no war chest, I have no political ties or lobbyists, I have no union connections or country club memberships. Already the few people I've told about my decision have asked me, how can you fight the system the way it is, you're trying to buck the system of established political machines? I'm reminded of one of the heroes of the Korean War remarking on the fact that his Marine division was surrounded by 22 Chinese divisions, "They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can't get away from us now!"- Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC. If we dare to harness that third rail, we cannot fail.

I place my political faith in the genius of the founding fathers, the ingenuity of the common man and the God given blessing of the American dream.