5/22/12: Glen did not win his primary. BUT he is still in office in the state house doing Liberty’s work. Thank you, Glen! See you next go round.
Glen Bradley is a former US Marine, attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary to study the History of Ideas, and is a self-employed field network and point of sale service repair and installation engineer. Glen Bradley currently serves in the North Carolina State House of Representatives for the former District 49, Franklin, Nash, and Halifax Counties.
Glen Bradley has built a solid unimpeachable record of upholding and defending the Constitution and Conservative principle, even when he had to stand completely alone to do it. You can find his voting and sponsorship record on the NC General Assembly Website at ncleg.net.
Glen is a Frederick Douglass Republican, a strict construction Constitutionalist unafraid to stand up and defend human and civil rights, even when that means standing against his own party to do so. As a Constitutional Conservative, he models his politics after Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, Robert A. Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul.
Glen has built a truly impressive record of accomplishment as an adamantly independent Freshman in the NC State House, including authoring the text House Bill 587 that eventually became the crown jewel jobs piece of Senate Bill 781.
Glen Bradley is the type of independent-minded Representative who is not beholden to any lobbyist or special interest influence, and yet still manages to accomplish significant gains in office. He stands with the people, and not with his caucus, the caucus leadership, or the big money that buys politicians today.
Glen answers the Liberty Candidate questions below:
I) Re. the U.S. Financial System:
What is your view of the monetary system in the U.S. today?
• The Federal Reserve fiat currency system is broken and needs to be scrapped. There is no such thing as a fiat currency that does not give in to the whims of the money-masters to create inflation and deflation and reflation until all the currency, value, and property ends up in the hands of a vanishing minority.
What corrective actions could we take right now to improve the economy?
• Legalize competing sound currency so that people have a shelter to hedge against the collapse of the fiat dollar. I introduced a bill in the NC STate House in 2011, HB 448 the Constitutional Tender Act that would have legalized silver and gold coin and bullion as tender in the State of North Carolina.
Do you agree with the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to solve the financial crisis? If not, what could the Fed have done differently?
• Absolutely not, the Fed has been doing everything in it’s power to preserve an artificial monopoly on legal tender. The best thing the Fed can do to heal the economy is to commit ritual seppuku, but short of that it needs to step back and allow the free market to work and competing currencies to flourish.
Should the Federal Reserve be audited fully, no secrets, or does it need to keep some information under wraps?
• The Federal Reserve is a private organization in charge of perhaps the most important public policy in the United States. It needs to be audited with an electron microscope.
II) Re. Foreign Policy:
What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?
• Current US Foreign policy is misguided and dangerous to our future liberty and security.
How should we fight a “war on terror”?
• You can’t fight a war against a tactic.
Should the U.S. occupy other countries? If not, would you push to close all bases? Are there any you would keep open?
• The US should in no way, shape, or form occupy other countries. With our current technology it would not degrade our readiness, responsiveness, or ability to project force if we withdraw our permanent presence to CONUS, detached states, and outlying territories and possessions.
• Although there are no foreign bases that I would keep open, I would be willing to discuss the possibility of 5 to 10 ‘holdouts’ if it becomes necessary to bring enough security hawks over to win approval of a drawdown bill. While the ultimate goal is of course to end our foreign occupations everywhere, I could vote for an interim drawdown compromise that would bring 90% of them home providing that the host nations of the holdouts genuinely want us there. I am only willing to do so because it is better to shutter 90% of our foreign bases with an eye to proving that we don’t really need them, than to shutter none of them and maintain the status quo, but my goal will always be to eliminate all of them.
Should the U.S. maintain its standing army?
• Technically no, the proper Constitutional model for defense would have a bare-bones “skeleton army” on a two year revolving appropriation, working in conjunction with a substantial and formidable militia system for a rapid tool-up in the event that a large conventional force becomes necessary, while the US Navy and the US Marines are authorized much longer term appropriations and can fill the gap for all emergency and rapid response requirements.
• However, getting there from here is not straightforward. We have made an enormous amount of enemies with our foreign interventions over the last century, that would leave us vulnerable should we immediately return to a pure Constitutional defense policy. I would advocate the immediate withdrawal of all armed forces to CONUS, detached states, and outlying territories; and then a slow 50-year transition to a completely constitutional paradigm for the maintenance of the Army, and a Constitutional Amendment to authorize appropriations for the Air Force similar to the appropriations cycle of the Navy, due to their similar equipment and expertise requirements.
• It’s not as quick as I would like, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the mistakes of the past and proceed like they never happened. If we are going to eliminate the standing army and restore a Constitutional defense policy, we will have to do it with an enduring transition in order to prevent premature failure.
Is the Patriot Act necessary to protect America? If not, would you vote to repeal it?
• No. Yes, immediately.
III) Re. Personal Liberty:
What information may the U.S. government legally gather about its citizens? When would it be necessary to overstep those boundaries?
• Only that information that is publicly available and not secluded behind private property may be gathered without consent or judicial warrant. It is never necessary to overstep those boundaries. Even in the most extreme scenarios, FISA courts are capable of maintaining Constitutional due process in cases of terrorism.
What limits, if any, should be placed on the U.S. government’s ability to search its citizens without a warrant?
• The US Government should never have the ability to search citizens without a properly issued judicial warrant or voluntary consent.
Ought the U.S. government be allowed to protect its citizens’ health by outlawing foods it considers unsafe, or to force medicate (i.e., fluoridation) or force vaccinate citizens?
• Absolutely not, under no circumstances.
What controls, if any, should be placed on the right to own a gun? Is there an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals without encroaching on the rights of free, law-abiding citizens?
• The best defense against madmen with guns, is rational people with guns. True gun control is breath control, trigger control, sight alignment, and sight picture. The only measures I would support for controlling the ownership and possession of guns are reasonable restrictions on known violent felons that defy reform, who have actually themselves committed aggressive violent acts, and even they should have some means available to restore their rights if they can truly demonstrate reform. We have to stop revoking the gun rights of people who were merely in the neighborhood when a crime went down committed by some other person.
IV) Re. U.S. Sovereignty:
Is our involvement in and subjugation to global organizations, such as WHO (World Health Organization), NATO, the UN, etc., a benefit to U.S. citizens?
• No. Doctors and private medical organizations should have the right of free will and sovereignty to participate in the WHO if they choose to, but it should not be under government impetus. The remaining organizations have no facility for private participation and should be avoided entirely.
Would you work to repeal international agreements that purport to hold U.S. citizens and/or property under its jurisdiction, or do you think there might be times when benefits outweigh concessions?
• I oppose any and all international agreements and treaties that are not Constitutionally approved by the US Senate regardless of whether they may be beneficial or not. Also, the US Senate is not allowed to approve any treaty or foreign agreement that is in conflict with the US Constitution in the first place. Any foreign treaty that is approved by the US Senate and does not impose extraconstitutional requirements on the United States and her citizens is valid. Any foreign treaty or agreement that is nor approved by the US Senate or does impose extraconstitutional requirements on the United States and her citizens is invalid, null, and void. They should not be ‘repealed’ per-se because they were never validly in force to begin with, they should simply be dismantled pro-forma. I am, however, willing to go through the motions of a formal repeal if that is necessary to bring enough legislators on board to make it happen.
Are trade agreements with other nations, i.e., NAFTA, CAFTA, good for U.S. citizens?
• Theoretically, it is possible to conceive of a trade agreement that may be mutually beneficial to the citizens of both parties, however none that we are currently a party to are. NAFTA, CAFTA and the rest should be repealed immediately. We should only approve foreign trade agreements that “regularize” free trade between nations making it easier not harder. Just because a treaty has “free trade” in the name does not make it a valid ‘free trade’ agreement, and the NAFTA and CAFTA managed trade agreements are prime examples of this duplicity.
Should the U.S. give foreign aid to other countries? If yes, for what purposes would it be justified? If not all countries, which would you continue to support?
• No. There is no Constitutional authorization for foreign aid, and all foreign aid should be abolished everywhere. Although only marginally Constitutional, I would be willing with Congressional approval to deploy Constitutionally appropriated Navy and Marine forces to aid in direct nonaggressive disaster relief for the explicit furtherance of international good will towards the edifying of our overall national security.
V) Re. State Sovereignty:
When does state law take precedent over federal law?
• State law takes precedence over Federal law in all cases where the State Law is not in direct conflict with those enumerated powers exclusively granted to the Federal Government in the US Constitution.
Would you stand up to the federal government and demand that it stay within the bounds of its enumerated powers and out of state business?
• Yes, and I have a spectacular record in the North carolina State House of Representatives of doing exactly that, even though North Carolina is the state most reluctant of all 50 states to approach 10th Amendment and State Sovereignty legislation. To my own political peril, I was recognized by the 10th Amendment Center as the nations most prolific and brave 10th Amendment State Legislator. I introduced the Farmer’s Freedom Protection Act, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the Intrastate Commerce Act, all three being examples of nullification with interposition. I also introduced the State’s Right to Claim Sovereignty without interposition in the form of a resolution.
Do federal officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes?
• Technically, the crime of interstate commercial fraud is actually one of the few issues that does validly fall under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. Some 95% of everything that Congress attaches to the interstate commerce clause is a blatant distortion and violation of the writ and intent of the Constitution, but that does not mean that the clause does not exist. While interstate commercial fraud could and would be listed as a valid federal crime under the US Constitution, the proper way to make arrests in such a crime would be for the Federal judiciary to coordinate state enforcement activities with State and County police.
• Technically, Federal law enforcement officers should not exist. There is a criminal justice role at the Federal level, even if it is extraordinarily limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, but their proper role would be not to make arrests directly, but to coordinate constable activity at the State and County level. Unfortunately, I do not see the FBI being abolished or reformed into a coordination branch any time soon given our current paradigm, even though I would be completely on board should the circumstances for such reform arise.
• I would push in all circumstances towards the proper constitutional model of federal coordination of local forces, and the existence of only extremely limited federal criminal justice activity, but until we have accomplished those reforms, the FBI will continue to have a role in the arrest of the perpetrators of interstate fraud.
VI) Illegal Immigration:
What do you see as the #1 problem with illegal immigration?
• The primary issue drawing illegal immigrants into the United States is the warfare welfare state. Free warfare creates low level demand, and free welfare creates low level supply. This supply and demand cycle perpetuates the illegal immigration problem. Also, our legal immigration system is broken, which further perpetuates the illegal immigration problem at the margins.
What actions could we take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?
• I could possibly envision a simple ‘proof of citizenship’ requirement for the drawing of social services, but such data and proofs while they may be required from the Federal level due to Congressional control over immigration policy, citizenship rightfully belongs to the states, so all mechanism, data, and identifiers for such proof of citizenship would need to be maintained at the State level and not shared with the Federal Government.
• An argument can be made that the 14th Amendment confers the responsibility for the maintenance of citizenship over to the Federal Government even though by original intent that responsibility belongs with the States. Therefore while I would in principle oppose any measure to enforce citizenship requirements from the Federal Level preferring citizenship requirements be held at the State level, due to the 14th Amendment I would not argue that doing it at the Federal level was technically unconstitutional.
VII) Misc. Questions:
If you could make one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?
• If I could only choose one, it would be a balanced budget amendment with teeth. There are so many other issues that we need to provide enforcement for to limit the Federal government, and many far more creative amendments I would like to propose, but it all starts with the money, so that would be my first priority.
Would you vote to end government subsidies to private industry?
• Yes. Without exception.
What should our government’s action be against Julian Assange, if any?
Do you know what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and the Communitarian agenda is? Do you support it? Why or why not?
• I am familiar with the UN’s Agenda for the 21st Century, and I oppose it vehemently. I am introducing legislation in 2012 to oppose UN Agenda 21 at the State level in the North Carolina State House.
Your Name: Glen Bradley
State: North Carolina
Office Sought: North Carolina State Senator District 18
District: State Senate District 18
PRIMARY DATE: May 8th 2012, Early Voting starts April 19th 2012
Email Address: Click here
Website Donation form: www.glenbradley2012.com/donate.php