What Is This All About???
I have watched with growing alarm the disintigration of
the country as special interests, power-grabbing opportunists, and others rise
in power, give away the wealth of the country, and sit idly by as the United
States loses its national identity.
You might try to figure out which political party I
belong to based on the descriptions on this webpage, but don't bother. I don't
really consider myself a member of either of the two major political parties -
or even one of the "fringe" parties. You will find parts of my personal ethics,
ideas, and goals to be common to all of them. If there was a Common Sense
Party, I believe I'd be a member of that one.
So who am I and why should you read this? Well, as to the
latter - you can read this or not, it's a semi-free country. But you might find
parts of this web page interesting. As to the former... keep reading.
I was born in West Virginia. My father was a
self-educated architect who eventually rose to prominence in the historic
preservation side of architecture, writing several books and working all over
West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, and other places. My mother worked for my
father as a secretary. They worked out of the house in the early years, letting
my parents raise five pretty successful sons in a great home environment. We
went to church every Sunday; played on various church and school sports teams;
sang in the choir; played in the band at school; passed newspapers (on foot for
the most part); were active in the Boy Scouts (four Eagle Scouts, one Life
Scout, and dad earned the Silver Beaver); and in general had a great childhood.
We never had a whole lot of money, so each of us worked after school to earn
what we needed to buy what we wanted. All of us eventually went to college
(except one who joined the Army). All of this of course helped shape who I am
My personal life has been an interesting journey. Besides
what was briefly mentioned above, I graduated from West Virginia Institute of
Technology with a Bachelor of Science Computer Science degree and a Minor of
Mathematics. After college, I went to work for the US Government in the
Department of Defense. After a year or so, I got married and have remained
married for well over 20 years. My work in the DoD has taken me to several
countries where I've had the pleasure of working with our fantastic men and
women in the military, along with counterparts in other countries. It has been
an interesting and very rewarding career. Somewhere along the way I managed to
earn a Masters of Science in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins University in
Currently, I still work for the DoD and am stationed in
San Antonio, Texas. I have been here for several years and it doesn't look like
I'll be leaving any time soon.
My wife, who also works for the DoD in the same place I
do, shows Appaloosa horses, and as you can see by the other parts of this web
page, she is very good at what she does.
As for my hobbies, I have several. I started hunting a
few years ago and continue to do so on an off-and-on basis, build and fly model
rockets, bowl in a league after work and play poker several nights a week in a
local poker league. I'm also planning on getting back into Scouting when my
schedule allows. You can see I keep myself fairly busy.
That's pretty much it for me. If you want to discover
more about me and my wife, explore the rest of this site. There are links on
the left part of the page. If you have any other questions or comments, just
send me an email.
Here is where I lay out my thoughts on various issues
facing the US. If I don't cover something near and dear to you, just ask. My
email address is above. There are several very divisive issues below, and I
know I'll have half of the country mad at me for one thing or another, but
lighten up! Not many of these issues are really even that important!
Let's go in alphabetical order. That way readers cannot
infer the strength of my opinions based on which issue I choose to cover
This is probably one iof, if not the most divisive issue
facing the country right now. You would think my upbringing as a Christian
would have me thinking a certain way. But don't think that, and don't get all
bent out of shape by what I say next.
I am not Pro-Choice or Pro-Life.
I have conflicting views on this subject. When does life
start? At conception as some believe? At birth as others believe? Sometime
inbetween? I don't know. You might think conception, it seems logical. But is
that collection of cells really alive? In a way it is. Is it a person, to be
given the full protection of the law? No, I don't believe so.
Look at it another way... if you want the Government to
get involved and decree when life starts you start down a very slippery slope.
Besides, where in the Constitution does it say anything about the Government
having a role in an individual's medical care or abortion? Anyway, let's say
the Government decides to say that life begins at conception. Interesting...
what then do we do with mothers (or fathers) who smoke? Mothers who drink or do
drugs or eat something the Government decides is bad for babies still in the
womb? Charge them with child abuse or child endangerment? If a person kills a
pregnant woman, at what point in her pregnancy do you charge the killer with
killing two people? Do we do autopsies on all murdered women to find out if
they got pregnant the night before? See what I mean?
I believe if you decide to have sex and get pregnant, you
are responsible for that life being created - no matter what you believe about
when life begins. If your personal beliefs allow you to abort that future
child, then I will not stand in your way. It is not right for me to try to push
my beliefs on you - it is your life and your option. Should the government be
involved? Absolutely not. If it's not right for me to push my beliefs on you,
then it's not right for the government to tell you what you have to do with
that life growing in your womb. The two people who decided to create life have
the obligation and responsibility to discuss the matter and decide
together what to do.
People will ask - what about rape or incest? It's the
same choice. Even though the woman (probably) didn't have a choice in the
matter, it's still a decision she will have to make in these two unique cases.
Realistically the father isn't involved in the decision, so it's ultimately the
woman's choice. If she decides to go full term and have the child, what
business is it of mine? Or yours? Or the Government?
What about late term abortions? Is this a different
situation? Many would argue it is. Especially at the point where there is brain
activity and a heartbeat. At this stage you could argue that life is present
and the baby is now a person. I would support that argument.
So, ultimately, my opinion is that abortion should be
legal and available in the US - IF the individual states determine it is
legal in their state. Counseling should be available - but not
necessarily mandatory - to all parties concerned. Attacks against clinics,
hospitals, doctors, and patients should be met with the full weight of the law.
Such attacks are terrorism, plain and simple, and should be treated as
This issue has divided this country to the point where
this issue ALONE will cause some people to vote or not vote for a certain
candidate. In my mind this is short-sighted on the voter's part. There are many
more issues involved - too many to let one single issue decide your
Boy, where to start. You may get the idea from reading
more that I'm not tolerant of crime or criminals. You would be absolutely
correct. You do not have the right to my stuff, my life, or anything else.
Pretty much everything is a privilege that must be worked for. If you want to
short-circuit the system, be prepared to pay for your transgressions.
First, crime is, and always will be, a serious issue.
People will try to get away with whatever they can, be it petty theft or
murder; that's just part of the dark side of human nature. A whole industry has
grown up to help these criminals avoid punishment for their crimes. It's way
past time to do something about it.
Punishment for crimes vary by wide degrees across the
country. There should be some rigidly-applied standards for certain crimes.
Judges should be made to abide by these guidelines, and if the guidelines are
not specific enough, there should be a way for a judge to request clarification
before passing sentence.
I'll lay out some broad categories below and my opinions
on them. This section will be expanded as I think of categories to add.
Murder - This is the big one. Murderers have taken
life and therefore have forfeited their right to life as a consequence. Don't
give me some bleeding heart attitude about capital punishment. Let the
punishment fit the crime. Undue pain and suffering? Give me a break. What about
the pain and suffering this person inflicted on the victim(s)? I would like to
say once again that the puishment should fit the crime. But I can be lenient -
death by lethal injection is fine. One drug to put them to sleep (so what if
the needle "hurts") and the rest to kill them. That's good enough for me and it
should be good enough for society. And it shouldn't take 20 years to exact
justice. With the technology available today the law should be able to prove
beyond a resonable doubt and the appeals process should be able to be
shortened. There must be no doubt about the defendant's guilt. If it is
determined that people lied to get that person convicted, whether they be
witnesses or government agents (police, etc) those people should be tried for
Attempted Murder. Sure, there are degrees of murder - this paragraph deals with
Rape - This is a heinous crime and deserves harsh
punishment. Mostly, I equate rape with murder. Rapists, especially child
rapists, deserve no less than death. If not that, then how about castration?
Along with a lengthy jail sentence. No less than 30 years - mandatory. No plea
bargains to reduce the sentence to time served and probation, which has
happened in way too many instances.
Drunk Driving - This crime is one that affects way
too many people in the U.S. each year. I don't believe people who drive drunk
should get their license back in less than 6 months for a first offense and
after a third offense they should never be allowed to have a license again.
Those who drive without a license after getting it taken away for this offense
should be severely punished with a very long jail sentence. There is absolutely
no excuse for driving drunk. None. If you kill someone while driving drunk you
should be sentenced the same as muder. It is the same as going up to someone
and shooting them in the head - except drunk drivers often kill more than one
person at a time.
Robbery/Theft - This category refers to theft at
any level. Major corporate theft all the way down to a person stealing a pack
of gum from a convenience store. At the very least, the criminal should be made
to pay all costs for the victim to recover (materially) from the robbery, even
if the items stolen are recovered intact. The criminal should be made to do
time in proportion to what was stolen. First offense should be something like
one FULL hour behind bars for each dollar or portion thereof. Time served
awaiting sentencing should NOT count towards jail time. Second offense raises
the time to a FULL 12 hours per dollar, third offense raises the time again,
this time to one FULL day per dollar. Robbery and theft are not "victimless
crimes." Too often people who steal are not required to do any time at all,
leaving them the impression that robbery is a "safe" crime to commit. People
who also injure or kill people during robbery attempts should be punished at a
much more harsh level.
Drugs - There are two real classes of drug
criminals: producers and users. Pushers are considered "producers" in my book.
Users should be punished with forced rehab and education. Second and subsequent
offenses should include jail time and more rehab. Producers are the worst part
of the equation. They make their money preying on the weak-minded and
weak-willed. Jail time should start at 5 years for a street pusher all the way
to death for major traffickers. Of course there are those who argue the "War on
Drugs" is a failure and should be stopped. Those people are right to a certain
extent. The Federal Government really has no say in this - there is nothing in
the Constitution giving the Feds the power to control drugs. Just as there is
nothing there about alcohol (Prohibition was a useless gesture that only made
the criminals rich - just like drugs are doing now). If you want the Government
involved, it should be done the same way as with alcohol. You may think I'm
crazy, but if you're going to be a Constitutional candidate, you can't pick and
choose the things you want to be in the Constitution (or not in there as the
case may be).
The US currently has a weak economy. But the fundamentals
- those people who work for a living - are strong and will pull us out of these
dark times. If the media and the politicians would just SHUT UP and not try to
scare everyone to death about the economy, things would start to turn around.
And quit trying to pass "stimulus" packages that don't have anything to do with
stimulating the economy!!!
While I am sympathetic to those who don't have a great
lot in life, there are ways to get around those problems and work yourself out
of poverty. Notice I said "work." You can't get something for nothing, at least
you shouldn't be able to. Government needs to get out of people's lives and
force them to support themselves. Welfare should be reserved for those who
absolutely CANNOT work in any way. I work with someone who is paralyzed from
the waist down - and he puts in a full day's work every day. In addition, we
have blind people who work every day. Don't tell me you can't work because
you're in a wheelchair or blind or deaf or anything like that.
I will be the first to admit I'm not a economist and
don't really know much about the economy. But who really does? Certainly not
our political leaders. That's why there are people who advise the leaders -
people who know the economy and how it really works. I'm not sure they're being
heard though. The economy needs a good correction. It's been up for way too
long, it needs to slide a little.
The economy needs to grow and remain strong. Incentives
for companies to move jobs out of the country need to be halted. The US worker
needs to realize they receive wages and benefits based on the work they do, not
on what some union says they deserve. Uh oh, I'm bashing unions. Unions are a
good thing for pointing out employer transgressions and giving emplyees a sense
of self-worth. But they (in part) have helped to destroy the workforce that
supports them by forcing employers to give workers so much in the way of
benefits and pay, that it's cheaper to move jobs overseas than pay the good,
hardworking, American worker! Many unions spend more on political contributions
than they do supporting the workers they are supposed to be helping.
One more thing... the Congress needs to rein in spending.
Their practice of throwing away billions of dollars on earmarks has got to
stop. Let's make a rule that anything that goes into a spending bill
must have a vote. If the Congress would take all the money they waste on
earmarks every year and put it towards actually fixing things that are broken
(like infrastructure, Social Security, military veterans benefits, and much
more), we wouldn't be in such bad shape. Ask your elected leaders about that
The future of any country is its children. How they are
raised and educated will determine how that country fares in the future.
Nothing should deter the US from having the best educated populace in the
world. We have the people and the resources to do this - we just need the
Our school system needs to get back to the basics and
teach the children. Overloading them with homework will not work. Never has,
never will. Teach history, math, science (none of that foolish "creationism" vs
"evolution" nonsense - teach them both and let the kids decide), biology, etc.
Take end of year standardized tests out of the system. All these do (and we see
this in Texas) is cause the teachers to teach to the test. Let the
instructors or subject matter experts create standardized end of semester exams
based on the materials taught! Let's see what the kids learn and grade them
appropriately. If some fail, hold them back. The damage to their fragile
egos will be offset by actually learning the material; and they will hopefully
learn some resposibility for their actions! If kids know they won't be held
back if they fail a subject, what's the incentive to actually study and learn?
We are producing a nation of uneducated adults. I seriously fear for the
stability of the country in the near future.
Sports in school is a good thing, but not the ONLY thing.
When sports overtakes education in importance, there is a problem. When
atheletes are told "you didn't come to this school to learn, you can here to
play sports for me" then there is a problem. When coaches are paid
multi-million dollar contracts there is a problem. Let's get back to educating
the children. If you have less than a C average, you should not be allowed to
play sports (or any other extracurricular activity). Period. And don't take it
easy on the atheletes either - not many of them will ever play professional
sports, so they'll need their education to get a decent paying job when they
finish school. Coaches that lobby for atheletes to receive better grades than
their work deserves should be fired.
Remove politics from the classroom - except for political
science classes. There is no place in the school system for partisan political
posturing of any kind.
Religion - all religions - should be taught to the
children. Children of all faiths, or none, would benefit greatly by learning
the traditions and culture of people all around the world. Besides, many if not
all of those religions and clutures exist in the US also, and our children will
have to deal with others from those faiths eventually. Teaching the children
tolerance for opposing points of view is a good thing and should be a priority.
None of that "separation of church and State" nonsense either. Show me where it
says that in the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't say that, does it? I
didn't think so.
Languages are good for children to learn, and they should
be taught languages from grade school when they are still able to easily learn
new languages. Other countries stress languages, and you will find children in
(for example) South Korea who are able to speak English almost as well as they
speak Korean. We should strive to be a member of the world community at least
in language education. There is great debate right now over schools having
bilingual education. I don't have a problem with that as long as the primary
language being taught is English.
Let's take away all of those fancy incentives for school
systems the government hands out. Let's let the Department of Education work
with actual educators to create school curriculum which will point our youth
towards their future.
Who out there believes the government is too small? Yea,
me too. Government is way too big. It's involved in too many things it has no
business being involved in. Government should be reduced to its basics -
protect the country and its interests.
There are way too many agencies in the Federal Government
with way too many employees. Government is not efficient at any level. Agencies
need to be examined from top to bottom and hard cuts need to be made. Sure, it
will put people out of work and I understand that. But shrinking the size of
government is a good thing for the country.
Let's go take a close look at the Constitution and find
out just what the federal government should be doing (and is allowed to do) and
get back to that. Most all of the things the federal government is doing now
should be the job of the individual states.
Sure, we didn't get here overnight and we won't solve
these problems overnight either. It's taken over 100 years to screw things up
to this point and to make people so dependent on Government that they can make
a "comfortable" living not working. It's a generational change. Don't expect to
make things all better in four years, or even eight. It will take many years
and many Presidents and Congresspeople to fix. But we have to elect the right
people, or we will end up with riots in the street and a government that can't
do anything but opress the people. Civil war or revolution follows... and who
really wants that?
Before I start on this subject let me quote something: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Sound
familiar? It should - this is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Limits on the ownership of "arms" is prohibited by the
Constitution. Of course the framers could not envision things like tanks,
missiles, and nuclear weapons - so rightly the ability to "bear" these things
is limited. However, other arms - to include pistols, shotguns, and rifles are
standard "militia" type arms which a legal, non-criminial citizen of the
United States should be allowed to bear. There are many laws on the books
restricting the ownership of guns. These, given the Second Amendment, should be
illegal. However, rulings from the Supreme Court and other state courts have
"clarified" the intent of the Constitution.
Banning guns does not make a free or safe society. The
old adage - "if having a gun is illegal, only criminals will have guns" - is
quite true, not matter how you spin it. Look at the District of Columbia. There
has been a strict gun ban there for years, yet the District is constantly in
the top of the murder rate for the US. If having gun control laws makes society
safer, then the District of Columbia should be the safest city in the US.
Having a ban on guns only prevents law-abiding citizen from owning a gun and
being able to defend themselves against crime. Texas has had a concealed carry
law for years, yet the state's gun crime statistics are quite low when compared
to states without such a law.
You may think I'm some right-wing gun nut. Far from it. I
didn't own a gun until about 1994 and my father, despite (or maybe because of)
his military service, would not allow a gun in the house during my childhood. I
had a BB gun for a short time, but only because I borrowed it from a friend. I
am a gun owner now although I don't currently have a concealed carry permit. I
have two pistols and two rifles, and my wife has a pistol and two rifles. We
have both been hunting and plan to continue hunting in the future. I don't mind
submitting to a background check before buying a handgun - I have nothing to
hide. I am opposed, however, to the government (state or federal) telling me I
don't have a right to own a gun.
Gun crime is a serious issue. I didn't cover this in my
section about crime but here is what I believe should be law - if you use (or
have in your posession) a gun, even a toy one, in the commission of ANY crime,
your sentence should be a mandatory 5 years in prison without parole, added to
whatever sentence you get for the crime you committed. A second offense should
give an additional 10 years, and a third offense should give you life. If you
actually HARM someone while committing the crime, your sentence would have an
additional 10 years without parole added. With no options for a judge to change
A free-market system of health care brings about
innovation in health care. Managed care by the government should not even be an
issue of debate. The government has a hard enough time doing anything
efficiently, can you even try to imagine the government managing the health
care of the US? The same government that can't run an effective Post Office,
that has bankrupted Social Security? I can, and it's not a pretty thought.
Let's let the market decide on health care issues.
Should there be regulations in place? Sure. The health
insurance companies are way out of control. Health care is not affordable for
millions. But is it the government's job to make sure everyone has insurance?
No - personal responsibility plays a large role here. It is your responsibility
to provide for the health and welfare of your family. Health insurance can
be a part of that. So too can health savings plans (which I wholeheartily
endorse). One does not necessarily need to have health insurance to enjoy a
healthy life. But if you don't have insurance, you should be responsible enough
to put away some money every paycheck to pay those bills when they come
Immigration is a good thing for the US. Legal
immigration. Illegal immigration, however, is not.
Every person in the United States illegally is a
criminal, and you already know my views on crime. The term "undocumented
immigrant" is a dodge and shouldn't be given traction as a description of
illegals. First, let's enforce the laws already on the books about illegal
entry into the country. Increase the Border Patrol and, if necessary, augment
them with the National Guard. Give the Guard the ability to arrest and hold
Let's create a series of tent jails in border states and
hold illegals there when they are caught. Keep them in these jails for three
months at a minimum for their first offense. Double the time for each
additional offense. Set up a national database of illegals and fingerprint and
photograph every single one caught crossing the borders. "Coyotes" should be
held in a separate jail for a year minimum, longer if possible. Human
trafficing is a horrible offense and should be treated harshly. If an illegal
dies while under the care of a Coyote, that person should be charged with
Build a physical fence? Sure, if it doesn't bankrupt,
cause serious ecological problems, us or cause other vital services to be swept
aside. Otherwise, increasing the Border Patrol (and National Guard) and the
increase of penalties for illegals should be enough to help stem the tide of
Children born in this country are not necessarily
automatic citizens. From the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution: "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside." What does this mean? Is an illegal alien subject to the
jurisdiction of the US? If not, then their children born in the US are not
citizens. If so, they are - but the parents still are not.
I am happy to read that a member of Congress has
introduced a bill to change the immigration law to state that only children of
LEGAL resident mothers are automatic citizens. This is a great idea and has
been a long time coming. I hope it passes.
Enforcement: every person arrested for any crime
in the US should be checked for legal status. If you are in the country
illegally, you should serve the sentence for your crime in the regular prison
population. Once you have served that time, you should then be sent to one of
the tent prisons on the border to serve your sentence for illegal entry. Once
your sentence there is complete, you will be deported to your country of
"Sanctuary Cities" are already illegal. The idea of not
enforcing US law by not checking a criminal's legal status is absurd. Any city
or state which has this policy should be penalized in some way. Some have
advocated a loss of highway funds. I don't necessarily agree with this; taking
away those funds hurts the whole state or city, and can ultimately endanger the
health and safety of the populace. What is the best solution? I'll leave that
up to the lawyers.
Our military is the finest in the world and it should be
treated as such. The brave men and women who protect our nation and its
interests deserve the best equipment and training they can get. For the job
they do they are woefully underpaid but they keep on doing what they do, day in
and day out.
Any person who knowingly damages the military mission in
any way should be punished severely - whether they are in the military or not.
For example, there was a recent case where military members defrauded the
military by steering contracts to companies that gave kickbacks to those
members. Those people - both military and contractor- should be severely
punished. In a time of war they should, at most, be charged with treason
against the United States.
Similarly, those members of the government (or anyone
else with knowledge) who expose military operations in a time of war should
automatically be charged with treason. There is no excuse for this behavior,
especially those who are elected to serve the public. If you disagree with the
President or military commanders, fine. There are legal avenues to take to show
We all know there is waste and abuse in the military and
in other areas of government. Deal with it - find that waste and abuse and
punish the offenders. Government and military service should not be a lifelong
occupation automatically. People should be able to be fired for their
Having worked in the security arena pretty much my entire
adult life, I have some very definite opinions on security. However, I'll
reduce my thoughts down to a few basics.
We in the security arena live by a code of "need to
know." If you don't need to know something, you don't learn about
it. The same should go for anyone when dealing with security matters.
Military plans, computer codes, encryption, etc. should all be covered under
this thought process.
Where you get into trouble with the security apparatus is
when you learn of something and then tell someone else who does not need to
know. That is known as a "leak" and there are laws in place which are supposed
to deal with this crime. In a time of war, leaks of miltary plans cause
harm to military forces and should be dealt with harshly - treason is a serious
crime. For example: members of Congress who are brifed on military operations
or security operations and then come out and tell their staff or members of the
press about those operations. This causes harm to the United States and those
people, the congressmen and the reporters who write the story, should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This section isn't totally about Social Security. It also
covers other entitlement spending.
Social security is not. People need to be
responsible for their own retirement plans. Business can help with that. If you
have a job, you have the ability to save money towards retirement. Don't expect
the government to provide for you - social security may not even be there by
the time I retire, even though I've been paying into it for over 25 years!
Forget about it for the younger workforce. Congress has done you in by stealing
from the "trust fund" for years. Let's try something radical - let people "opt
out" of Social Security and take their future into their own hands. There are
lots and lots of programs out there for people to invest in. Let's let them do
it. Social Security is a pittance and doesn't provide enough to live on now -
what do you think it'll look like in 10 years? Or 20?
Our current tax code is a joke. It is way too complicated
and it allows those who should be paying the bulk of the taxes too many
opportunities to avoid paying taxes. There are also complaints about illegals
not "contributing" by not paying taxes, but that's kind of an absurd argument
so I won't go there. Like it or not, every legal resident of the United States
is obligated to pay taxes to the government.
What's my solution? Scrap the personal income tax in
favor of a "consumption" tax. Amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax.
Anything anyone purchases, with the exception of food (essentials only) and
basic services (electricity, natural gas, etc.), has a federal tax associated
with it. This way, every citizen pays their fair share of taxes every day. This
tax affects the rich and the poor equally since everyone buys something at some
point. What would be the tax rate? I'm not sure, I haven't studied the total
purchases of people in the US on an average basis and what the total cost of
running the government is. Likely the tax will be something on the order of
20%. That's a lot of money, but what would your savings be if you didn't have
to pay personal income tax? Personally, I pay over 48% of my salary to taxes
before I see a dime. I wouldn't mind keeping some of that.
Actaully, I've been reading a lot about something called
the Fair Tax. It's almost what I outlined above, but much more well thought
out. Take a look at their web
page. I would support this plan wholeheartedly.
Another plan I would support is the Flat Tax. One rate
for everyone, no deductions. Except possibly for charitable donations, but if
you open that door it would allow Congress to start srewing around with the tax
code again, and in a few years it would be as convoluted and Byzantine as it is
The government's job after that is to spend the money
wisely. There are lots of examples where the government just wastes billions of
dollars every year.
Do you want to hear more common sense opinion? Write to
me and ask. I'll be glad to post a list of questions and my opinions on those