Elko County Republican Party Senate Questionnaire

Bill Parson for the U.S. Senate 2010
December 17, 2009

What is your motivation for running for a U. S. Senate seat?

As a retired Marine field-grade officer and long-time project manager for National Security Technologies. I have been blessed to live a life of service. Serving Nevada and our nation in the United States Senate would be the culmination of that life of service – and the honor of replacing Harry Reid with someone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution as it was written by the Founders only adds to my desire to serve.

I believe that our nation, and the Constitution that I cherish and have sworn to defend, are under assault from both internal and external threats. The Constitution, our Nation, and the Sovereignty of Nevada must be protected, and few are better positioned to serve and protect those cherished values than Nevada’s United States Senator.

I see serving my fellow Nevadans as my next call to service as their citizen legislator.

How will you make decisions on what bills to support or oppose as a Senator?

My decision to support or oppose legislation will be driven by:

• A determination, first, whether or not the proposed legislation is allowed under the enumerated powers afforded to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States. I will only consider for support those bills specifically allowed under the Constitution.

• A determination whether or not the proposed legislation supports or diminishes the sovereignty of each of the 50 States. Any bill that diminishes the sovereign rights of any state – as defined and defended in the Constitution – will not be considered for support.

• A determination whether or not the proposed legislation restores or supports the individual liberty and freedom of the individual citizen as enumerated in the Constitution. No bill which erodes a citizen’s liberty, rights or freedom will be considered for support.

• A determination whether or not the proposed legislation represents sound Federal fiscal policy, or does it contribute to the ever-expanding national debt. No bill that reflects an unsound fiscal policy, no bill that adds to the national debt will be considered for support except for bills funding national defense in times of declared war.

• Does the legislation benefit the State of Nevada without adversely impacting the preceding four terms? Earmarks are anathema to sound fiscal policy – only those bills which are Constitutionally-permissible, which benefit Nevada without adding to the national debt, and without eroding Nevada’s sovereignty or individuals’ liberty, will be considered for my support.

What is our form of government and what form of government did the Founders expressly want to avoid?

Our national government is a Constitutional representative Federal Republic. Limited power is relinquished by the individual citizens and by the sovereign states to the federal government only as identified in the enumerated powers stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the sovereign states and the individual citizens.

Why?

Our Founding Fathers specifically avoided a democracy because they clearly recognized that a simple majority could swing the United States at the whim of the public, to the detriment of the States, and to the detriment of the sacred freedom and liberty that every citizen derived from their divine Creator. Democracy invites mob rule and the “tyranny of the majority.”

James Madison feared that a democracy would favor the self serving objectives of factions or blocks within political parties. James Madison and the Founders were right, and trends within our country amply demonstrate both their wisdom and the fallacy of our current national trajectory.

Can you explain where the Federal Reserve fits into our federal government?

The Federal Reserve is not an entity of the federal government – and as a conceptual entity, it was feared by and warned against by the Founders.

Rather than being part of the Constitutional Federal government, the Federal Reserve is a privately-operated central bank that was originally chartered by Congress under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with modifications occurring over the last 95 years.

Improvidently, Congress allows the Federal Reserve to set and control American monetary policy – as well as the money supply – by issuing Federal Reserve “Notes” (often referred to as fiat money, which are actually printed by the U.S. Treasury). Without the intervention or approval of the Federal government, the Federal Reserve is able to contract or expand the U.S. money supply – at will – by controlling the ratio of assets to debt held by U.S. Banks. These ratios allow the expansion or reduction of the U.S. money supply by controlling the creation and quantity of debt within the United States.

Most representatives and senators in Congress will state that they fulfill their constitutional responsibilities through the mechanism of the Federal Reserve and through the Senate’s advice and consent, confirming or denying the nomination of a Federal Reserve Chairman and members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Who is responsible for coining money?

According to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution – “The Congress shall have the power to …
coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; …”

It seems clear that because the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy and the supply of money issued by the Treasury of the United States, this Constitutional provision is not honored in the spirit in which it was written and intended by the Founders.

Do you support sending more troops to Afghanistan?

I support sending the additional U.S. military forces to Afghanistan to meet Lieutenant General McChrystal’s immediate request to ensure the safety of our forces currently deployed there. However, this does not address the larger policy question of U.S. force deployment and our foreign military policy. That larger question is the critical one facing our military and our nation today.

Concerning Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that we – as a nation – have not agreed upon or even recognized a common or official definition of success – Victory – in these conflicts. As a retired Marine field-grade officer who has served our country, both in the United States, as well as overseas in Asia and Europe, for nearly two decades, I recognize the extreme difference between the definition of success – Victory – for the warrior and what passes for success or victory for the civilian politician.

A warrior has achieved success when the enemy has been killed or has surrendered. That constitutes victory. From a military perspective, we have long-since accomplished both of these objectives – killing and/or accepting the surrender of the identified enemy – within the boundaries of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our dilemma is that we have not adequately defined, for either Iraq or Afghanistan, what constitutes political success for each of these countries.

When will we, as a nation, achieve success – victory – in these military interventions? If we use the models of Germany, Japan, and Korea, then the answer appears to be never. Sixty-four years later, we still have significant forces within Japan and Germany. Although no credible threat of invasion remains for these former Axis nations – with possibly minor exceptions in Japan and Okinawa – a full withdrawal does not seem to be on the agenda.

This situation is even more acute in Korea, where the war so actively fought between 1950 and 1953 has been stilled by armistice but not ended by treaty. Our 32,000 soldiers and other service personnel remain in harm’s way, in an allied nation technically at war with its neighbor to the north. The world’s sole superpower does not need 32,000 soldiers sitting as a trip-wire force to trigger an armed response should North Korea invade South Korea – all we need is the political will and military means to defend our ally to the South if it is invaded.

I believe that within the next two years (January 2012), we should stabilize – to the greatest extent possible – both Afghanistan and Iraq, then withdraw our military forces as we hand the reigns of governance back to each country as we depart. We need to plan for and execute military unit redeployments back to the Continental United States (CONUS) for most of the U.S. Forces overseas; particularly those troops stationed in Europe, Korea, and Japan. Neither Germany nor Japan face any credible military invasion force requiring the defensive capabilities of substantial U.S. ground forces – and there are far better ways of defending South Korea from invasion than by absorbing the cost and facing the risk of forward-deploying 32,000 troops.

This strategic redirection and redeployment of America’s forward-deployed ground and supporting naval and air forces will place the primary responsibility for the immediate defense of each of these countries back on those countries.

As a matter of strategic policy and fiscal responsibility, the U.S. must cease to be the defense force of the world. The U.S. military can fully execute this policy without abandoning our military commitments to support our allies in the face of invasion.

As a former Marine field-grade officer who has served in Korea, I advocate for the redeployment of the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division, stationed in Korea, back to the continental United States. I also advocate for the redeployment of the US Marines 3rd Marine Division and 1st Marine Air Wing, currently stationed in Japan and Okinawa, as well as the 52,000 troops currently deployed to Germany to defend that country from a threat that hasn’t existed since the Soviet Union collapsed nearly two decades ago.

I further advocate that one of these division-sized forces be home-based at the current weapons storage facility at Hawthorne, Nevada. These forces must have a home base when they return, and I believe that Hawthorne would be an excellent location for one of these military organizations.

In each case where the U.S. withdraws and redeploys military forces to the United States, we, as a nation, must clearly and unequivocally convey to the world that we will respond militarily (unilaterally – without UN or NATO permission or participation) with conventional or unconventional force if adversaries should attack our allies.

In the case of those countries where terrorist training camps are operated, we must clearly and unequivocally convey to the world that we will respond militarily (unilaterally, and again without UN or NATO permission or participation) to destroy those training camps. The United States is the predominant target for these terrorists, and any nation unable or unwilling to block terrorists from using their national territory lose their claim to disinterested sovereignty – they become “accomplices before and after the fact,” and at least tangentially responsible for every terrorist attack on America or our allies, and therefore must face the consequences of their failure to act.

I believe that the United States must retain the ability to defend our interests across the
globe. We must retain the ability to address ever-increasing threats of piracy, and we must stand ready to protect U.S. citizens that may be threatened or taken hostage by pirates or terrorists in any country whatsoever. Those countries that fail to police their own territory lose their right to dictate who and what can attack those terrorists and pirates within their national territory.

To accomplish this ongoing mission – protecting our national interests and our citizens’ lives and property – I believe that we should add an additional four carrier battle groups to the U.S. Navy. This will allow us to support forward presence of U.S. military power in international waters, which is a prudent, cost-effective and strategically-sound alternative to maintaining permanent bases on foreign shores.

Additionally, I believe that we need to reconstitute our amphibious shipping fleet – the maritime support force for the Marine Corps that has been lost over the last 30 years. We must do this by building additional amphibious ships to support an additional three Amphibious Readiness Groups (ARG’s) – this can be done without adding to the number of Marines on active duty. These amphibious forces will require additional littoral-warfare support forces (destroyers, stealth patrol craft, submarines, long-range carrier aircraft and submarines optimized to operate close to shorelines) to address new generations of hostile stealth-enabled high-speed missile boats, air-independent littoral-optimized conventional submarines and land-based surface-to-surface anti-shipping missiles.

This additional amphibious and naval support shipping will facilitate a strong forward U.S. presence in international waters without posting forces on foreign shores, and without risking U.S. lives to terror attacks and other risks of foreign-deployed ground forces. The cost of these shipping efforts will be considerably less than maintaining permanent shore bases overseas.

What about Iran?

The claim by Iran that they desire peaceful nuclear energy programs is – at best – a half truth. I believe they recognize that the world’s supply of oil, particularly in Iran and the Middle East, is becoming depleted, while the demand for oil to power more developing nations continues to dramatically escalate. This trend toward increased demand and decreased supply inevitability represents the greatest risk area for international conflict. This risk must be recognized and planed for in U.S. strategic policy (both internal and external). The building and operation of nuclear power plants in Iran and throughout the third world is inevitable – just as the U.S. does, they seek to ensure they have adequate power to meet the needs of their populations

Should Iran attempt to use a weapon against Israel – their most likely use of a nuclear weapon – or against the U.S. or any other U.S. allies, we will unilaterally destroy Iran’s military forces, cities and nationwide infrastructure, and we will do so without the benefit of a UN debate, without UN permission or UN military action. Should a terrorist group be provided a weapon from Iran, and we establish through nuclear forensics that it originated from Iran, we will unilaterally destroy Iran’s military forces, cities and nationwide infrastructure without the benefit of a UN debate, without UN permission or UN military action.

Iran has not attacked the United States, nor been proven to be involved in terrorist attacks on the U.S. or U.S. interests overseas in recent years. They continue to supply weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, but those radical Islamic terrorist groups have so far focused on Israel rather than the United States. However, the potential exists for Iran to support through weapons, safe havens, training bases or other support, radical Islamic terrorist groups which do target the United States.

We must continue to monitor Iran and continue to engage in diplomatic dialogue with that nation. However, we – as a nation – should not dictate the internal affairs of Iran or other countries; rather we must seek to ensure we behave as good neighbors ourselves. President George Washington’s admonition “to avoid foreign entanglements,” from his historic Farewell Speech, remains sound advice, and sound strategic policy.

Iran’s nuclear program is disturbing, but though it may seem unpalatable, this is an area where we should place ourselves into their shoes. The U.S. has nuclear weapons. The U.S. continues to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain viable, and the United States has prudently never renounced first strike use of these weapons. Iran and other countries – as sovereign powers – believe that they have the same rights in the international community as we do.

Iran, under the Shah, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970; the current government maintains that it is in compliance with that treaty, though the UN’s organization that monitors compliance has disagreed with this declaration on several occasions. Still, the adoption of that treaty was voluntary; and in signing it, Iran did not surrender its sovereignty, any more than the U.S. did when our country signed that treaty.

It is in our strategic national interest that we, as a nation, must send a message that we desire Iran and other countries not pursue nuclear weapons. However, if they should pursue the development of nuclear weapons, we will and must honor our treaties for mutual protection with our allies.

What do you think of the 1872 Mining Law?

I support the continuation – without modification – of the 1872 mining law which allows all citizens of the United States of America, 18 years or older, to locate and lay a claim for lode (hard rock) or placer (gravel) mineral deposits on federal lands, until such time as these lands held by the BLM and all other federal entities are surrendered to the individual sovereign states.

I advocate for, and will work toward, having all Western Lands held by the Federal government and not immediately required for national defense, or reserved by treaty for Native American tribes, to be surrendered to the individual sovereign states at no cost.

Revenues previously derived and accrued to the federal government would, once the land transfer is complete, be paid to the individual sovereign states. Individual states would be responsible for setting and controlling environmental, safety, and mining policies for existing and future operations.

I will strongly oppose any increases by the federal government for mining taxes, duties, levies, fees, or other revenue collection methodologies associated with the mining industry. Rates, continuation, or deletion of each of these would become subject to State determination once the passing of control of these lands from federal to state administration is completed, and federal involvement would cease.

I strongly oppose any expansion of control or regulation by the EPA, MSHA, or OSHA that would serve to obstruct the continuation of mining operations within the State.

Do you support U. S. involvement in the United Nations? Explain.

I believe that the interests of the United States are not well served by our current level of participation in the United Nations. This organization has proven to be ineffectual, and populated by corrupt and self serving representatives and appointed leaders.

The UN provides a stage for the most despotic regimes of the world to gather and demean the most free and generous group of people on the face of the planet, the American people. It also gives these regimes and despots the patina of credibility, by allowing them to participate as equals with the democratic First-World Western, Pacific and East-Asian nations.

There are currently 192 countries in the United Nations, yet the U.S. provides 22% of the assessed funding, an imbalance that is grossly inappropriate.

Ten countries fund over 76% of the U.N. budget:

United States 22.000%
Japan 16.624%
Germany 8.577%
United Kingdom 6.642%
France 6.301%
Italy 5.079%
Canada 2.977%
Spain 2.968%
China 2.667%
Mexico 2.257%
182 Other Countries 23.908%

This equates to the U.S. “Assessment” being about $1.08 billion for the 2010-2011 period. The U.N. Secretary General has actually forecast spending a total of $13.9 billion, with the U.S. “Assessment” being $3.058 billion – and the U.S. has virtually no control over this budget or the amount of the U.S. assessment. That is just wrong.

In reality, when we consider that we contribute military and other equipment, and U.S. funded personnel to UN operations and peace-keeping efforts, the U.S. pays vastly more than this amount. For this huge investment in world peace and international comity, America is held in contempt and is routinely berated by representatives from some of the world’s most ruthless and corrupt countries. The UN allows them to act as if they are our equals – an absurd farce – and to criticize us as if they were our betters.

I personally believe that the United States should abandon our participation in the United Nations. As a U.S. Senator, I will advocate for reducing the U.S. contribution to 1/192nd of the UN budget, or to the adjusted appropriate ratio as countries join or leave so that each country pays an equal share. This will not be based on per-capita funding, but on a one-nation/one-share assessment.

Under no circumstance shall the United States be made subject to any regulatory or legislative action of the United Nations, nor shall the U.S. be subordinated in any way to the UN or any other foreign or international entity. Our service members or military forces of any size shall never be placed under the direct command of the United Nations.

How do you plan to stop devaluation of the U.S. dollar?

The devaluation of the U.S. dollar is a result of numerous profoundly poor, ill-advised, and perhaps even malicious policy decisions. I will advocate for, and vote as a U.S. Senator to:

• Cease deficit spending

• Begin paying down the U.S. debt

• Significantly reduce U.S. Foreign Aid payments

• Grant a one-year “Tax Free Holiday” for U.S companies to repatriate American dollars back to the U.S. from offshore

• Increase domestic U.S. oil production to reduce wealth transfer to foreign oil-producing nations

• Create the environment where the U.S. Balance of Trade becomes positive – we must end the decades of post-war negative trade balance

• Complete “Enumerated Powers Legislation” (HR-450 and S-1319)

• Shrink the federal government and federal budget by 60% over 10 years

• Complete “Audit the Federal Reserve Legislation” and implement change based on the results

• Explore the path for return to a hard currency

If you were in the Senate today, where would you stand on the health care bill passed in the U. S. House of Representatives on November 7, 2009?

I oppose every page of the House and Senate Health care legislative proposals. There is no ability to debate and compromise on this legislation. I maintain that they should be killed in their entirety because they are first, and foremost, unconstitutional and must be rejected without debate.

This is nothing more than a federal attempt to directly control 1/6th of the national economy. It is a migration path to a socialist structure within America that subverts our Constitution and individual liberty, freedom, and choice.

It has been over a decade since passage of NAFTA and GATT. How do you think this has affected our country and American industry?

I am an advocate for “Free Trade”, but strongly opposed to NAFTA and GATT. Since these legislative actions were implemented, we have seen American industry ship manufacturing plants south of the border, and to offshore countries. America has experienced tremendous job loss and a significant reduction in our internal manufacturing capacity. This places us at tremendous risk, for if a nation is totally dependent upon others to make the goods they consume, they can be held hostage by foreign powers. If you doubt this, simply look at how oil impacts the foreign policy of many countries including ours.

Some argue that we did not need the jobs that were exported because we should transition our workers to higher skill level and better paying jobs. Unfortunately this has not proven to be the case, and continues to not be the case.

This condition of exporting American manufacturing and jobs is not just historical, but is actively occurring even now in an industry that has aggressively been put forward as one where we will create many new “green jobs” in America. I am speaking of the production of Photovoltaic Panels. U.S. companies such as First Solar Holdings LLC, Evergreen Solar, BP Solar, General Electric, and Schott Solar have all closed production facilities here in the United States and are either moving their production offshore or buying products from China. Do not take my word, read the news reports at the following sites.

• http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/11300903-first-solar-ramps-up-solar-panel-production,-eyes-china.aspx

• http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/11/05/evergreen-solar-to-move-solar-panel-production-from-massachusetts-to-china/

• http://www.icis.com/blogs/green-chemicals/2009/11/ge-exits-us-solar-panel-produc.html

• http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7052267

• http://www.wickedlocal.com/billerica/news/x1591365771/Solar-panel-production-company-closes-its-doors

The Constitution (Article I, Section provides for tariffs. These can be used by Congress as a tool to ensure America does not lose its manufacturing capabilities and associated jobs to “Cheap” and inferior products from overseas. I will seek to pass legislation that introduces tariffs to protect our manufacturing base and associated jobs, while retaining reasonable cost for products internally produced or imported into the country.

I will pursue action to modify or repeal treaties such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and all those treaties granting “World Trade Courts” the ability to control U.S. imports and tariffs, actions that limit our ability to ensure America retains its capacity to produce goods.

We must stop the pending long decline to a third world country as a result of bad trade policy that is diminishing our manufacturing capability and resulting in a continual trade imbalance where Americas wealth is exported to other countries.

What would you do about our energy policies and dependence on foreign supplies?

Our energy policy must recognize that there are two energy requirements:

I. Fixed site energy needs and,

II. Mobile energy needs.

My positions on these are as follows:
I. Fixed energy needs are serviced by commercial power plants generating electricity. America’s electrical needs are currently produced from the following energy sources:

• Coal 49%

• Natural Gas 22%

• Nuclear 19%

• Hydroelectric 6%

• Renewable (Wind/Solar/Geothermal) 3%

• Petroleum 1%

Coal is our largest conventional source of energy immediately available; according to a variety of industry sources, we have an estimated 250 years of coal sources available inside the continental United States. This area of our energy needs can be addressed by placing greater reliance on coal in the short run (10 to 20 years).

I live about 9 miles from a coal-fired power plant (Reed Gardner) – this plant demonstrates that coal-fired power plants can be upgraded to operate in a much cleaner manner. At one time, it was one of the dirtiest operating plants in the U.S. It is now one of the cleanest. The cost to generate electricity from coal is about 4.5 cents, the cheapest of all sources.

Natural gas has a place in the generation of America’s electrical power needs in the short run (10 to 20 years), but I believe it is highly over-committed in the long run. Estimates are that we have 100 years of resources available in the continental United States; but there are significant claims on our natural gas resources for manufacturing needs and especially for the fabrication of fertilizer critical to farming and growing the world’s food supplies. Given the ability to generate electricity from other sources, it is not advantageous to America’s long-term energy future to expend this 100 years of resource combusting it in the generation of electricity.

Nuclear represents America’s single largest currently- and readily-available source of energy. We have extensive reserves of uranium in the continental United States, and the second largest reserves of Thorium in the world. Although the U.S. is not currently building any nuclear reactors, we continue to be the world leader in the design and building of reactors for other countries.

The entire electrical needs of the United States can be fulfilled from nuclear power for many centuries if we simply develop the political will to do so. Large capacity generation of hydrogen to power vehicles and desalination of water in coastal regions will require nuclear reactors.

There is also the ability to build nuclear power plants known as “Pebble Bed Reactors” that have very little water requirements since they use super heated air to drive turbines.

Expanding the U.S. hydroelectric generation capability is highly problematic since most suitable large-scale production sites have already been exploited. Smaller rivers and creeks could be exploited for local grid feeds or “off-grid” use. Although these sources would add only a small capacity to the U.S. needs, they can be useful in some locations if environmental concerns and regulations can be addressed. Additionally, replacing the mechanical equipment in many hydro-electric facilities with newer technology has been successful in expanding the production capacity of existing hydroelectric facilities.

Renewable energy in the form of wind and solar is receiving tremendous publicity, but actually has significant obstacles to expansion. Cost of production and installation of windmills and solar energy facilities requires extensive public subsidies and/or tax subsidies to be viable. Cost per watt of generating power for these technologies can be three to five times more per watt than from other sources – unless fuzzy math is introduced into the analysis to address political arguments.

Additionally, wind can be fickle in most locations and solar only works when the sun shines. Storing electrical energy on commercial scales is exceptionally difficult and costly. To overcome these constraints, a conventional power plant has to be held in a low operational standby condition to backup these sources, a wasteful and costly condition. These resources are best used to address surge requirements that occur during daylight business hours, particularly in the summer with large electrical requirements for air conditioning needs.

The use of oil as an electrical generating fuel should be limited, as it is more effectively used for transportation, and will become more limited and costly in the next 10-20 years.

As a U.S. Senator, I would seek to do the following in addressing electrical power plant needs.

As a matter of Constitutional fidelity and fiscal principle, I would not include federal government subsidies and tax incentives as part of my position for these areas:

• Remove obstacles to building coal-fired power plants

o Specifically in Nevada, remove the obstacles to the Elko and White Pine coal-fired power plants which were temporarily killed by Senator Harry Reid in early 2009.

o Facilitate retrofitting existing coal-fired power plants with technologies that reduce pollution.

o Facilitate rail upgrades for transport of coal

o Fast-track environmental studies and other federal requirements/obstacles

• Remove obstacles to building nuclear power plants

o Fast track environmental studies and other federal Requirements/obstacles

o Implement legislation to release all federally-funded patents associated with nuclear power generation that are held by universities and other entities whose research into these nuclear energy patents were funded entirely or in part by federal taxpayer dollars.

o Facilitate the design and construction of “Pebble Bed Reactors”, preferably in Nevada

o Remove obstacles to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel

o Facilitate the design and construction of a nuclear reprocessing facility, preferably in Nevada

o The issue of Yucca Mountain should be decided by the State of Nevada and not the federal government.

• Remove obstacles to construction of geothermal power plants along the I-80 geothermal ridge, Highway 50, and other areas in Nevada

• Facilitate the construction of wind farms and solar plants, but only in locations where the community agrees

o Construction and operations must be accomplished without federal funding or subsidies

o This effort must be accomplished in conjunction with transfer of Western federal lands to the States and all lease revenues must be paid to the States and Counties where located

II. Transportation energy needs are serviced by petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and as some propose CNG (compressed natural gas). These represent a significant source of international tension as sources for oil are heavily competed for in the market place, and through the exercise of political power.

We can see this as China seeks to buy up oil leases in Canada, Mexico, South America, and to drill in international waters off of the Florida coast. As previously discussed, CNG will be heavily committed to fixed-site electrical power generation requirements in the future and I disagree with the idea they represent a long-term source to support transportation needs.

As a U.S. Senator I would seek to do the following to address America’s transportation energy needs. Federal government subsidies and tax incentives are not part of my position for these areas:

• Open America’s public lands to increase our internal production rates (Drill Here – Drill Now philosophy)

• Explore with the coastal States opening coastal areas to production of oil and gas

• Encourage the migration of America’s rail systems to transition from diesel electric to electrified rail powered systems similar to those found in Europe.

• Encourage the design and building of “Electric High Speed Rail – Bullet Trains” using the center and rights-of-way of the Interstate Highway system, totally funded by private enterprise, with “Lease Fees” for rail rights-of-way provided to the federal government.

What do you think of the “Cap and Trade” bill that passed the House earlier this year?

I believe the House bill is Unconstitutional. It is a path to socialism and will result in the destruction of the American middle class. It will result in the extremely wealthy and politically-powerful receiving the benefit of this transfer. It will also represent a taking of the wealth of America and transferring it to other countries through direct programs, the crippling of America’s economy, and the destruction of America’s remaining manufacturing capabilities.

The underlying principles of “Cap and Trade” are flawed in that climate change attributed to mankind is highly improbable. Analysis of previous Ice Ages, including the Mini Ice Age of the 1600’s and 1700’s, strongly suggests that climate change is a natural process that proceeds with little or no involvement from mankind. The most significant elements affecting climatic changes are associated with solar sunspot activities (they come in 11 year cycles, but there is tremendous variation in each of the 11-year cycles) and with volcanic activity.

Recent scandals among so-called “climate scientists” strongly suggests that even the strongest advocates of the “global warming” and “global climate change” theories know that the concept is fraudulent, politically-driven and essentially socialistic, rather than scientific.

There are highly respected, legitimate scientists not party to any fraudulent attempt to politicize science and who study geology, ice core samples from glaciers, and deep ocean sediment – these scientists dispute the politics of “Man Made Climate Change”. The levels of carbon dioxide in the air have been much higher several times in the earth’s history than what they are today. I do believe that we should be good stewards of the planet, but the current climate change obsession will ultimately be seen as a great political and scientific deception.