Absolutely none.

Ronald Reagan, because he told us what he wanted to do as President and then set about getting it done.

No, because Iraq was not a clear and viable threat to the United States. 

Although we went into the war based on some very fraudulent and misleading intelligence data and analysis, to set a timetable now would be a tremendous setback for all the things that have been accomplished and continue to be accomplished every day.  It is up to the Iraqi people to ask us to leave.  When that happens, or our commanders on the ground tell us that we should get out because further positive gains are not possible, then we should leave as soon as practical at that point.

Given the unstable situation in Pakistan these days I believe that Afghanistan is becoming more and more important to our safety and security in the world and would, as soon as practical given the Iraq situation, increase our presence in that country and work much harder than we have been given the emphasis on Iraq to get that country back on a firm footing.

Not at this time.

I do not have a problem with this and do not understand why this upsets people so much more than having to have a driver’s license for identification.   However, before any such cards were to be introduced it would have to shown absolutely fool-proof before we start handing out 300,000,000 of them.  It would also have to be shown to be cost effective as we do not need another huge federal administrative entity to feed.

Please see my answer concerning the Patriot Act above. 

In addition, when “mistakes” are made such as the crafting of faulty and misleading intelligence reports that lead a country into war (Iraq) are made, I will make sure that people are fired from their jobs and not just shuffled around.  In many ways I believe that these agencies are far too beholden to a particular party or agenda and I will not allow that to happen.  What these agencies do must be with only one thought it mind.  What is in the best interest of all Americans?

Although the Federal Government has instituted several nationwide gun laws, I believe that further gun control or ownership issues are more properly addressed on the state and local level.  It is up to the individual states to establish the laws that they feel are fair and necessary concerning the ownership and use of guns.  As an outdoorsman, hunter and recreational shooter, I do not see guns as inherently evil and believe that further action by the Federal Government to restrict gun ownership is not necessary.

Yes, medical marijuana as a medical option should be made available to anyone to whom it will help.  It is somewhat ridiculous that people with life-threatening or life-ending diseases are often forced into criminal activities in order to ease the pain of their daily suffering.

As a newcomer to the world of politics I don’t have a record on raising or lowering taxes.  As a taxpayer I believe we pay enough in the way of taxes and that government needs to learn to live on what is available to it under the current tax rates. 

The current tax code is way too complicated and getting more complicated all the time. My opinion is that the country needs to move towards a simpler, taxation structure to not only make it easier for people to pay their taxes, but also to make it easier to determine when people aren’t paying their fair share. At this time, I also do not believe it is necessary to lower or increase taxes. The current level of tax revenues is fair and necessary given the present needs of the country. I do not believe in increasing taxes for two reasons:

First, in the long run, increased taxes are often counterproductive to overall revenue.

Second, increased taxes only lead to increased government spending and I believe the Federal Government already has plenty of our money to spend.

A while back, I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal (3/21/07 Page A18) which parallels my views on the subject almost exactly. This article was written by Jeb Hensarling, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 100 conservatives in the House of Representatives, and is titled “Contract Renewed”.

The article states: The time has come for each member of Congress to show political courage. We must stop politicking and work to provide real solutions to the serious problems that our nation faces. On March 21, 2007 Dick Armey, one of the authors of the original Contract with America, will be joined by taxpayers from across our country at the Capitol to endorse the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which was developed by the Republican Study Committee. These rights represent a renewed contract with all Americans to restore accountability to the halls of Congress. Here’s a glimpse:

1. Taxpayers have a right to have a Federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.

2. Taxpayers have the right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.

3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.

4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.


I think they are on the right track here, pretty much. Let’s look at those more closely.

1. Taxpayers have a right to have a Federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.

Our current debt is approximately $8.8 trillion dollars or over $29,000 for every man, woman and child in America. How did we ever allow it to get this big? This has to stop now. We are not in debt because we don’t pay enough in taxes; we are in debt because our politicians spend too much. It’s our money, not theirs.

If you or I or anyone gets too far into debt you have to cut back and only pay for the necessities until your finances are more in balance. That is exactly what needs to be done with the nation’s finances.

2. Taxpayers have the right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.

I would take this one step further by saying that taxpayers have the right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement plus a reasonable rate of return. Most of the younger generation does not believe that social security will be around for them when it comes to their turn to retire. The system must be modified to ensure that it is or Social Security is just another tax.

3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.

Income taxes are just the tip of the iceberg. We are taxed for trash, water, gasoline, telephone, property, vehicles, you name it. If the politicians can find a way, they will slap a tax on it. At one time those taxes made “some” sense since they were established to support the items that were actually being taxed. However, as time went on, more and more taxes have found their way into the general fund instead of being used for the purpose for which they were intended.

So I have two suggestions:

First, if a tax is on a specific item, gasoline for instance, that tax money must be used for what it was intended to be used for – maintaining and building roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

Second, we must have a balanced budget amendment. That is the only way to ensure that Congress will propose budgets that are within our ability to pay for them out of our current income.

4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.

The current tax code is ridiculously complicated. So much so that approximately 60% of taxpayers pay someone else to prepare their taxes and that should truly not be necessary. In order to get better and more complete compliance with paying taxes we need to make the whole system much simpler and easier to use. For that reason, I strongly believe in a flat tax system.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the above four proposals, it is interesting and amazing to me that a group composed of 100 House members have come forward with this “Contract” given the fact that they are probably a lot of the same people that are responsible for the 43% increase in the Federal budget over the last 5 years. It is, however, a step in the right direction.

I can and will guarantee that as President I will abide by the above policies and veto any bill (including budgets) that attempt to violate these principles. As I have stated before and will state again and again: my sole reason for this campaign is to do what is right for all Americans.

Nothing at this time.  The value of the dollar is based on many diverse and complicated factors.  The biggest factor affecting the dollar at this time is concern over our financial systems because of the mortgage meltdown.  I believe that over the near-term, the market will determine that the US financial markets will survive this problem in good shape and the value of the dollar will recover.

Keep the Federal government from interfering with it as much as possible.  The economy always does much better with a minimum of government involvement.  The Federal government should have the right of oversight and when things are getting out of whack, as in the recent mortgage crisis, should step in to apply the brakes before the problem gets completely out of hand.

Let's start with a couple of truths.

First, we can never totally eliminate artificial greenhouse gas emissions unless we develop totally new energy technologies. Second, the United States has absolutely no long-term comprehensive energy policy.

For that reason, I am proposing the following Energy Plan for the United States (and the world) in the following 3 steps.

Short Term - Conservation and Alternative Power
Five to Thirty Years - A Strong Nuclear Program
Long Term - We Need New Technologies

First - Immediate Efforts - Conservation and Alternative Power

Conservation is a good initial step to take to help reduce greenhouse gases and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources: driving a Prius, if practical, is great, turning off lights, lowering the thermostat, all those things are great; but in the grand scheme of things do very little to help us in the long run. As the population of the world keeps growing and becoming more "middle class", more people want the same things we already have and the demand for power and energy worldwide will continue to grow. Conservation slows the growth (slightly), but the growth of greenhouse gases worldwide will continue regardless of what we as a nation try and do. Every little bit helps, but in the mid-run it will not help enough and in the long-run it will be an absolute disaster.

Solar, wind and other environmentally "safe" technologies do exist and should be used as much as practical, but the current state of their technologies cannot produce enough energy to fully solve the long-term problems that we are facing as a nation and a world.

Second - Intermediate Effort - What we can do next

As stated in my previous document, nuclear power is strong in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. (http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)

In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes. (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm)

As President I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them and taxing the energy might solve California's budget deficit), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that could be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World.

If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil and coal to nuclear we would go a very long ways towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we mean to do what we can to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production. Such a step would also go a long ways towards lowering our dependence on foreign sources of oil and help bring stability to unstable portions of the globe. We could also use the nuclear power plants to help convert sea water to fresh water which addresses another threat looming just over the horizon - the shortage of potable water.

This, however, is an intermediate step and we can't as a country and a world just continue to sit on our hands and hope for the next step in energy production - we have to go out and make it happen.

Third - The Future - New Technologies

Everything I have talked about in this email so far concerns what we can do with old and existing technologies. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE CONSERVE, OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES WILL ONLY TAKE US SO FAR AND IT ISN'T FAR ENOUGH. WE NEED SOMETHING NEW.

As I have stated before, as President I would call on the country to immediately start a "Manhattan Project" for energy independence. We put a man on the moon back in the "dark ages" of technology and I firmly believe that we have the brain power to come up with solutions to the world's energy problems if only we apply ourselves and our resources to the task. We are quickly on our way towards spending $1,000,000,000,000 (that’s a trillion) of your tax dollars on the war in Iraq. If that money had instead been pointed towards new research and development into fuel cells, hydrogen power, solar power, fusion and other technologies, I believe we would already be well on our way towards major break-throughs in renewable and alternative energy solutions. The world and the United States will be much better off if we weren't all relying on a small region of the world for the lifeblood of our economies and we had a new technology to take us into the future.

That is my proposal for the long-term energy policy of the United States and, quite honestly, the world. Why don't we have a long-term energy policy in United States now? Because it doesn't make for interesting sound-bites and it requires politicians to be statesmen rather than politicians. Politicians aren't interested in something that may be a success after they leave office, but statesmen are because they understand that their job is to do what is best for the nation they lead, not for their political career.

Please see the above for my plans for US energy policy. 

Our infrastructure is falling apart and needs to be fixed. We, as a country, are losing billions of dollars every year in lost time, damaged vehicles and wasted fuel. We have a Federal gas tax that is supposed to go towards our infrastructure, but that has been wasted and mismanaged until we find ourselves in the position we are in today.  I would not longer allow our gasoline taxes to be stolen for the general fund or borrowed for other budget items.  Gasoline taxes would have to be earmarked only for highway improvement projects, new roads and bridges.   The highways, freeways and bridges in our major cities and in many other parts of the country are in danger of collapse from poor maintenance and lack of capacity and we, as a country, need to do something about it both for now and the future.

I believe that all people should be treated equally in all matters.   No, this is a state issue. 

The internet is one of the true bastions of democracy in the world today.  I would be against anything that threatens the “Net Neutrality of the Internet.

My strongest concern regarding our foreign policy is the damage that has been done to our standing in the world community the last few years.

Let me start out with three simple statements and then I'll tie them all together.

1.    For a long time I have been fascinated by and a big proponent of microlending in the developing world. 

2.    I am very concerned with our standing in the attitudes of most of the world, especially the developing world.

3.    People who have nothing to lose are easy targets for radical groups that want to see the United States and whoever else is convenient to hate, damaged.

Since the mid 1970's, when microlending got its start in India it has helped numerous people around the world get a financial footing under themselves so that they can start to develop a better life for themselves and their families.  As the name suggests, microlending basically consists of giving small loans at decent interest rates to people who could never borrow from conventional lenders.  The purpose of these loans is to give these people the opportunity to start or expand their own small businesses that generate income.  These businesses are often as simple as a one-cow dairy, sewing business or small milling operation.  The loans are typically very small - $50 to $1,000.  The people who get these loans are usually in the underground economy or living in remote rural areas with the vast majority of the borrowers being women.  Often over 95% of total borrowers are women in certain regions of the world.

These loans help to start a positive economic cycle not only for the borrowers, but for those around them.  Even at these small loan amounts, historic repayment rates have been very high and most people believe these programs to be an outstanding success.

This leads me into my second point in how do we go about repairing our standing with a great deal of the world, especially the developing world where the majority of our most dangerous enemies are currently coming from. 

Why is it that we have given so much foreign aid to a military dictatorship, as we have in Pakistan, with no real positive and often negative results?  Have you ever wondered why we are propping up a military dictatorship with our money?  Wouldn't our money be better spent trying to help the people in northern Pakistan improve their lives so they might not be so inclined to want to kill us and themselves? Instead we seem to be funding the lifestyles and weapons purchases of people who, as dictators, stand against everything we believe in here in the United States?  We've often done the same in Africa and Asia with similar results.

My proposal, therefore, is that we start to take a much larger proportion of our foreign aid dollars and start to invest them where they will do us the most good: a comprehensive microlending program in developing nations. 

Let's look at some numbers.   $1,000,000,000 (billion dollars) is a lot of money, but it is about the cost of one B-2 bomber.  Let's say we were able to take that $1,000,000,000 and go into a country as a microlender.  We'll assume that the costs of the program are 25% which will leave us with $750,000,000 to distribute as microloans.  If each loan were an average size of $500 that would give us the opportunity to help 1.5 million people build themselves a better future.  If we, as a country, help 1.5 million people improve their lives, don't you think that our standing in those people's minds (and those of their friends, relatives and countrymen) will increase as well. Will they be less inclined to join groups that want to kill us?  I think so.  Plus, these are loans, not grants, so as the loans begin to be repaid we can make further loans to additional people.  It is a program with unlimited potential and minimal risk with tremendous side benefits to us as a country.

As your President, I believe it would be far more useful to the long-term health of our country and the world if we were to use a portion of our foreign aid to help the poor of the world to lift themselves out of poverty by giving them economic options through microlending programs.  What do you think helps people more? Giving their leaders billions of dollars to buy weapons; food and medicines that may or may not get to those that need it most; and the opportunity to fill their own bank accounts with however much they can steal out of the programs?  Or helping the people of those countries with microloans to better their financial standing in their world? I strongly believe that our foreign aid would be much more productive using the millions of dollars spent on one fighter jet to directly help the people of that country.

Personal Responsibility:

I’ve chosen to expand on my beliefs concerning personal responsibility because that is the topic on my website that has generated the most comment.

In the Thursday, March 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal there is an article titled: “Congress Primed to Act on Risky Home Loans”.  The basic tone of the article is that Congress is trying to figure out how to bail out all of those people in trouble because they took on a risky or too large home mortgage in the last few years.  This is a perfect example of politicians using our money to bail out people for their own (often greedy) mistakes.  Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Chairman said, “I’m determined to do everything we can to allow people to stay in their homes”. 

I’m sorry, but where is the personal responsibility in buying too large or too expensive a house, getting involved in a “bad” mortgage in order to qualify for the payments and then crying when things go bad.  It is not my fault, your fault or the government’s fault that someone bought a house they really couldn’t afford.  But Congress feels they have to do something because it isn’t their money and why should people be responsible for making mistakes.

For those of you who have visited my website at www.frankforpresident.org you will recall that I wrote the following brief statement about Personal Responsibility.

Personal responsibility is just that - personal. If you do something stupid and you get injured or hurt, then it is your own fault. It’s not McDonald’s fault if you get fat, it’s not Phillip Morris’ fault if you smoke and get lung cancer, it’s your fault. The second biggest problem facing America is that people want to find someone to blame for everything that happens to them. Well sometimes it's your own fault, sometimes it’s just bad luck and sometimes it is truly someone else’s fault, but let’s get away from this victimhood mentality and back to standing on our own two feet and taking responsibility for our own actions.

I would now like to expand on that statement to give you more of a feel for how I would lead the country as your next President.

John F. Kennedy, in his Inaugural speech on January 20, 1961 made the following, very famous statement, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.”  To me this is one of the greatest calls for personal responsibility made in America in the last 50 years.

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some

2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Based on how our politicians operate today I would say that we are getting closer and closer to fulfilling Mr. Tyler’s prophecy.

In today’s pandering to the electorate by politicians of all stripes, no one ever calls for people to think about what they can do, as an American citizen, to make the country a better place.  Rather, today’s politician wants everyone to look upon them as their own personal savior and make them totally beholden to them for whatever they think they can get from the government for “free”.  That’s how politicians buy the votes.  It’s gotten to the point where a lot of people believe they are entitled to having the government take care of them whenever they make a mistake or are just too lazy to do what is right and work hard.

As President, I believe that the individual has the ultimate responsibility for his or her own welfare.    Most of what happens to almost everyone in their lives is a direct result of what they do to themselves.   Having kids when you are a teenager will mess up your life.  Drinking too much or taking drugs, will mess up your life.  Dropping out of school will mess up your life.  Smoking and eating way too much will mess up your life. 

Unfortunately, our politicians try to make most of the above seem to be someone else’s fault.  The politically correct will tell you that if you tell someone they are doing things wrong you’re being unkind.  Who are you to judge them?  Who are you to tell people how they should live their lives?  Well, I think the American people have the right to judge people’s actions when they result in those very same people asking (demanding) that the government spend our tax money to support and help them because of their bad decisions.  If you mess up, you are not entitled to having the government bail you out.  You made the mess, you fix it.

As President, I would vow to never pass a law that takes responsibility for one’s bad actions away from the individual and makes it someone or something else’s fault.  The biggest problem in America today is the failure of individuals to take responsibility for their actions and the feeling of entitlement so many people seem to have today.  As an American you are entitled to act freely as a person desires.  However, no one should be allowed to go begging to their elected representative when their bad choices, bad decisions and just plain laziness catch up to them.

One of the major reasons I decided to start this Presidential campaign was that I felt a personal obligation to do something to try and make America a better place to live for my children and all future generations.   That will only happen if this slide towards victim-hood is reversed and people start to take more responsibility for their own actions and the results that occur.

Natural Disasters and the Federal Government:

Natural disasters are always a terrible thing.  I haven't seen total devastation on that scale in America since I was living in Florida and Hurricane Andrew went through the southern part of the state. No one, no community can fully prepare for a disaster of that magnitude and it requires the help of local, state and Federal officials to help get things back to normal.

However, it has long been my belief that politicians secretly welcome natural disasters for the opportunity it gives them to pander to the electorate. While they may certainly care about the people affected by these tragic events, politicians also use them to be seen as caring and to throw our money around.

For years I've thought that there should be a more rational and organized response to natural and other disasters than the current system of knee-jerk politicians swooping in and doling out our money in an inefficient and wasteful way.

As President, I would propose a national disaster insurance fund be established to deal with these horrible situations.  Although, as they say, the devil is in the details, a rough outline of how I believe the plan should work and be set up would be as follows:

There would be a specific set of disasters covered under the insurance. For example, the policies would cover losses from earthquake, flood, hurricanes and tornadoes.

Current owners of property would have 5 years to decide to get into the program. After the 5 year transition period was over, if you didn't have the insurance, there would no longer be any Federal assistance to individual property owners in the event of a natural disaster.

For buyers of new property, they could decide to buy the coverage anytime after buying their property. However, if they did not purchase coverage, they would have no right to Federal assistance in the event of a natural disaster.

The policies would be sold through existing insurance companies, much as earthquake coverage is currently sold in California.

No one would be forced to buy, but I would assume, much like fire insurance, that anyone who has a mortgage on their home or other property would be required to do so by their lender if they lived in a zone where there was the potential for any of these major disasters.

Prices would be kept reasonable by two key facts. First, there would be a large number of property owners involved in the pool which would spread the risk. Between those property owners in hurricane, earthquake, flood and tornado zones quite a bit of the country and a tremendous number of properties would be potential buyers. Second, the Federal government could subsidize the coverage - the subsidy coming from what is not given out each year in emergency disaster funding.
 

This program would accomplish several things.

First, it would make people responsible for doing what is necessary and proper to protect their property in the event of a catastrophic loss caused by a natural disaster.

Second, it would establish a true fund to pay for these events.

Third, it would allow people in certain parts of the country to know that they aren't underwriting the cost of the rebuilding the areas where these things always happen. Whether it is hurricanes in the Southeast, tornadoes in the Midwest or earthquakes in California, why should someone in Arizona or Idaho (where natural disasters are fairly few) be required to contribute their tax dollars to continually rebuilding beach front property or homes in "tornado alley"?

Finally, it would take away the ability of the politicians to use our money to further their own political gains - at least in this area of life.

One on the main planks of my Presidential Campaign platform is that of personal responsibility. If you have property, it is your responsibility to see that you have the proper insurance coverage to ensure that if something tragic happens you have the coverage to rebuild your house. I believe an insurance program of this kind is the government's "responsible thing to do".

The New Right to Life:

I was out of the country for a couple of weeks and did my best to not watch news, read newspapers or hear about world events while I was gone. As we were at a jungle lodge in Costa Rica with no phones, no TV, no internet and, sometimes, no electricity, it was easy to do. Being away from the constant barrage of information, opinion and attitudes we live under each day can help give one a fresh perspective on things.

Of course, I did hear about the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota. Unfortunately, in one of my earlier emails of the campaign I discussed the poor state of the infrastructure in our country and this accident and all the subsequent hand-wringing has proved my statements to be correct. Even President Bush surprised me when he took the very uncharacteristic stance of saying that we didn't need an additional gas tax to fix the problem, but maybe we should be spending the money we have in more effective and meaningful ways. I will admit that I called for an additional gas tax earlier to deal with this problem, but in this case the President is right. We need to just manage our money and what our Federal agencies do a lot better. Maybe a lot of the problem is that our Federal agencies are involved in and spending money to try and control things that they shouldn't be doing.

A perfect example of that is the main purpose of today's email and concerns a topic that was in the Wall Street Journal last week and from which I borrowed my title. The title, "The New Right to Life" concerns the struggle of the dying to try experimental drugs, alternative therapies and whatever the heck they want to do and the great lengths the FDA goes to prevent that from happening.

There is something seriously wrong with a Federal Agency trying to control what someone who is dying wants to try to do to solve the problem or prolong their life.

Quite honestly it is none of their damn business.

So what if someone wants to try something that is not "proven". Maybe it will make a difference for them or to the next person with their disease. Maybe it will show promise for curing something else. Maybe it will give that person's life just a little more meaning.

So what if what they try hastens their demise? It was their choice and they went down fighting. Isn't that what life is all about? Fighting for everything we've got and then fighting to keep it. Isn't that what liberty and being an American is about? The freedom to do what you believe is right for yourself as long as you are not in danger of bringing harm to others.

Prior to leaving on our trip I read yet another article about the FDA that left me stunned. It was about an action taken by the FDA concerning a new drug. The drug passed all its tests. There weren't any problems with the drug and yet, the FDA in its infinite wisdom, decreed that the drug wasn't necessary (there was already another couple of drugs on the market that treated the same problem) so the company couldn't make it.

So now the FDA is deciding what the market does and doesn't want or need. Are we becoming a centralized state where all production decisions are made according to what some central planning group, in this case the FDA, determines what is good for the country? Didn't the Soviets spend decades proving that this type of system doesn't work? If so, why do we seem to be heading down this path?

The answer is bureaucratic power. Our Federal Government is drunk with the power of the bureaucracy and the two major political parties will do nothing to slow that growth because they both thrive on it.

The most dangerous words in the English language these days are: "It's for the public's safety." Those words seem to give the Federal government the power to do just about anything they want to reduce your liberty in the interest of your perceived safety. Doesn't matter if it is really necessary or even prudent, but it sure is a nice excuse for a government bureaucrat to expand his power base and build an empire on the backs of our freedoms.

The Constitution is the best document every written to protect individual liberties, but Federal Agencies seemed to have morphed into these monsters that believe that you only have liberty if they want to give it to you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the abolishment of the FDA as it does serve a useful purpose, but if you're dying and want to try something not approved by the FDA, be my guest. It's your life and you deserve the dignity and respect of being allowed to do what you feel is best for you.

As President, I would call for all government agencies to "pull in their horns" and get back to their core responsibilities. Our Federal government is already too large and close to being completely out of control. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect our liberty, not subject us to ever increasing federal regulatory schemes.

Where I Stand on the Issues:

I believe we pay enough in taxes and need to better manage our money and simplify the tax system.

I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and their own lives.

I believe that that we need comprehensive immigration reform based on strict enforcement of the immigration laws currently in place.

I believe the United States should not try to be the world’s savior, but has the moral obligation to "help" where and when it can do so at the request of the local people.

I believe in God, family and country and that they belong together.

I believe that the President of the United States should put America - not his or her political party - first. The President is an American before a Republican or Democrat.

I believe that our military should never be used for political purposes, political gain or to advance an agenda.

I believe that all people are created equal and that all people should be able to be equal in all things.

I believe in a strong separation between the branches of the Federal Government and in strong state’s rights.

I believe that judges should be judges and leave the passing and changing of laws to the politicians we have elected to do those jobs.

I believe that people are truly entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that no one is entitled to much beyond that unless they work to earn it themselves.

I believe that political correctness is a real threat to open and honest dialogue.

I believe “Anything is Possible in America” and if we all work together for the common good it will continue to be that way.

I am encouraged every day by the people I hear from that tell me I am on the right track and I strongly believe that if everyone continues to help me get the word out we can and will make a difference in the next election.

A lot of the political talking-heads claim that the final Presidential candidates may be people that aren’t even on the national consciousness just yet. With continued effort and your help, there’s a good chance they will be talking about my campaign in the next year on the major news outlets. 

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org