Tammy lost her primary. Thank you for running, Tammy! See you next go round!!!
Tammy answers the Liberty Candidate questions below:
I) Re. the U.S. Financial System:
1. What is your view of the monetary system in the US today?
A. The U.S. is using a fiat monetary system managed by a central banking system in direct violation of the Constitution.
Q. What corrective actions could we take right now to improve the economy?
A. Abolish the Federal Reserve and reinstate the gold standard. Each state should begin the process of coining money in an effort to protect their citizens in the coming currency crisis.
Q. 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?
A. No. The Federal Reserve should stay out of monetary policy and allow the market to correct itself. Manipulating interest rates and inflating currency only leads to increased instability in the financial system. Current efforts to “stimulate” the economy are only delaying the inevitable and insuring that it will be much more painful than necessary.
Q. Should the Federal Reserve be audited fully, no secrets, or does it need to keep some information under wraps?
A. I’m not sure that it’s possible to fully audit the Federal Reserve, since it’s a private banking cartel. That said, I believe in full transparency.
II) Re. Foreign Policy:
Q. What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?
A. I believe that American foreign policy should only be concerned with increasing fair trade and national security. I also believe that only U.S. law should be considered and not international law or United Nations initiatives. Meddling in the affairs of other countries is costly and tyrannical.
Q. How should we fight a “war on terror”?
A. You can’t fight a “war” against individuals or groups of individuals. Neither can you fight a war against fear and intimidation. You can defend your own interests by defending your national sovereignty and minding your own business.
Q. Should the U.S. occupy other countries? If not, would you push to close all bases? Are there any you would keep open?
A. We should not “occupy” any country and respect then national sovereignty of all. If any country needs security assistance, then they should be willing to pay a hefty price. The United States should avoid spending blood and treasure on policing the world. There is reason to keep some bases operational for strategic reasons, but our military presence in the world needs to be reduced.
Q. Should the U.S. maintain its standing army?
A. Yes. Modern national security needs require it, and common sense dictates it is prudent to be prepared.
Q. Is the Patriot Act necessary to protect America? If not, would you vote to repeal it?
A. I don’t believe the Patriot Act is necessary and is a violation of personal privacy of the individual (a natural right). Proper defense of our borders would do far more to protect America than forcing citizens to tolerate another sacrifice of liberty.
III) Re. Personal Liberty:
Q. What information may the U.S. government legally gather about its citizens? When would it be necessary to overstep those boundaries?
A. The U.S. Constitution allows for a census every ten years in order to count the number of people for representational purposes. Anything more is permitted only with due process when cause is shown to an impartial judge.
Q. What limits, if any, should be placed on the U.S. government’s ability to search its citizens without a warrant?
A. A properly executed warrant should always be obtained.
Q. 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?
A. No. The proper role of government is to enforce the Constitution. People have the natural right to make their own health decisions. We have a legal system in place that can better address those issues.
Q. 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?
A. The 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say “might be infringed” or “for a specified purpose” can be infringed. And it doesn’t distinguish between hunting and personal protection. It says “SHALL NOT”. Free, law abiding citizens should be allowed to own whatever they so choose without interference from the government. I do not see a way to keep guns from madmen and criminals. They don’t abide by the law anyway. No matter what protections government can put in place for public safety, madmen and criminals always find a way around it.
IV) Re. U.S. Sovereignty:
Q. 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?
A. Generally speaking, no. These organizations seek to undermine U.S. sovereignty and the Constitution. The United States should tolerate no subjugation to international law. The U.N. should be immediately evicted and all funding stopped while anti-American sentiments are held. The only proper role for government is to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. That being the case, any attempt to subjugate the United States should result in charges of treason.
Q. 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?
A. There are no benefits to holding American citizens or their property under foreign jurisdiction.
Q. Are trade agreements with other nations, i.e., NAFTA, CAFTA, good for U.S. citizens?
A. No. There are too many exceptions in favor of foreign interests.
Q. 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?
A. The U.S. should end all foreign aid. Keeping in mind that the government has no money other than what it coerces from its citizens, foreign aid is forced charity (slavery). Military aid should be provided only when asked for and when enumeration will be forthcoming. The U.S. has been using foreign aid to interfere with policies of other countries for too long. I can see some level of disaster response, but very limited. The American people are very generous when asked. Private charities exist that are far more efficient at providing aid when needed than the government can ever be.
V) Re. State Sovereignty:
Q. When does state law take precedent over federal law?
A. The 10th Amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.
Q. 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?
A. Absolutely! The federal government has abused and usurped too much authority over the states. It is time to reassert state sovereignty.
Q. Do federal officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes?
A. Only for federal crimes in areas specifically enumerated in the constitution.
VI) Illegal Immigration:
Q. What do you see as the #1 problem with illegal immigration?
A. Contrary to popular belief, the word “immigration” does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution, which raises the question of whether or not the “immigration” issue is an enumerated power of the Federal government, constitutionally speaking. The term “naturalization” does appear in the US Constitution, but immigration and naturalization were historically viewed as to separate and unrelated subject matters. On the matter of immigration, Thomas Jefferson stated “Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are…”
In fact, even after ratification of the 14th Amendment, several states held immigration offices in foreign countries for the purpose of controlling immigration. Over the last few decades, the States have allowed the Supreme Court, and later Congress, to usurp their authority and begin the control (or lack of control) over immigration.
The natural law of self-defense is a right of the States which no power of the Federal government has the authority to restrain or annul. Under our constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government, I cannot see how States can be compelled to submit to millions of immigrants entering their sovereign borders and plunder their own citizens to provide for those immigrants.
Illegal immigration has reached crisis proportions, in border states particularly. Were the Constitution and the principles of republicanism upheld, the question would be moot. Until such men and women are elected that will actually obey their oath of office, the States should, at the very least, refuse to use taxpayer monies to provide social services to illegal immigrants. Recent history indicates that when freebies are cut off, these people leave the area. The idea of billing the Federal government for costs associated with illegal immigrants is intriguing, but one must consider what happens when they refuse to pay.
Q. What actions could we take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?
A. Reverse the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and stop automatically conferring citizenship upon birth. Stop providing free everything, and medical services only in life-threatening situations. Make English the official language and outlaw Sanctuary Cities. Secure the border.
VII) Misc. Questions:
Q. If you could make one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?
A. To abolish the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.
Q. Would you vote to end government subsidies to private industry?
A. Yes. Government has no place interfering in private industry.
Q. What should our government’s action be against Julian Assange, if any?
A. None. Assange is not an American citizen.
Q. Do you know what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and the Communitarian agenda is? Do you support it? Why or why not?
A. I do know about Agenda 21 and I am adamantly opposed to it. Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a global plan that seeks to undermine our sovereignty and our law in favor of international law The long treasured and God-given American rights of life, liberty and property are threatened by this diabolical agenda. The objective of “sustainable development” is to achieve reduced consumption, social equity/justice and the preservation of “biodiversity”. The proponents focus on the areas of global education (indoctrination), global land use (control) and global population control (which includes population reduction). Global gun control is, of course, necessary to achieve full compliance. Agenda 21 is essentially global communism. Under the tenets of Agenda 21, Americans will lose the rights to life, liberty and property as envisioned by the American Founding Fathers. The United States Constitution will no longer be the Supreme Law of our land and be replaced with international law as determined by a World Court. I believe that every public servant at every level should make it a top priority to learn the truth about Agenda 21 and oppose it.
Office you seek: State Senate
PRIMARY DATE: May 29, 2012