This is to announce that I am officially running for president on the "rational individualist" ticket. It's not a big party, since I'm it. Do I think I can win? Nope. But I figure everybody else is running, so why not me? By my own definition, I'm the only candidate who should be elected. I figure any candidate who wants the job should be barred from winning. So as far as I can see right now, I have more to offer than anybody else who is running so far with the possible exception of Fred Thompson. Ron Paul might be a good choice except for his anti-war stance. Hillary Clinton is a socialist and our erstwhile Republican Senator McCain, are both "front-runners. "McCain might as well be a liberal, too (socialist). Just about everything he's done promotes socialism and liberalism (both words meaning the same thing). My platform is simple individualism, which is the antithesis to socialism. I believe every individual should not, so long as he/she is able, ask for anybody else to support him/her in any way. If he/she is able, he/she should always do everything for him/herself. For those who cannot do for themselves, we will "band together" and help. But it will be each individual's decision whether or not to help. We will never "prop up" an able-bodied person who is just lazy.
REDUCING TAXES
I believe reducing taxes is the only way to solve our economic problems. Contrary to what the Democrats think, letting financiers (and everybody else) keep more of their money gives them more money to use in financing projects and buy more goods that create more jobs and make more money, not only for themselves, but for everybody involved. Thereby they create a bigger tax base. Thus, everybody who is making more money pays more taxes, which gives the government more money to fritter away. Reducing taxes has raised the "tax take" every time it has been tried. I can't see why the Democrats can't see this. It is as plain as the noses on their faces. Maybe that's why. They can't see beyond their noses, which are usually in the air.
BIG BUSINESS AND BIG OIL
I will do all I can to help "big business" and "big oil," because they are the very people who make our lives better. Wal-Mart, for instance, is one of the liberals' biggest targets, but they create more wealth, for more people, than anyone else (including, of course, themselves, and they're entitled) I've never been able to understand why the liberals, who are the biggest critics of presidents who don't preside over a growing economy, do everything in their power to destroy the economy. This alone would eliminate any Democrat from consideration for any office higher than dogcatcher, in my mind. If they're not smart enough to figure this out for themselves, I don't want them in any position of power where they can control such things.
GUN CONTROL
On gun control, I will ask a simple question: "What makes you think a criminal, whose very life is breaking the law, will obey a law that says he can't be armed?" That says it all. No liberal or anti-gun freak has ever been able to answer that question. They just call the asker names. That's their primary method for stopping criticism without answering the critic's charges or questions. They're experts at diverting their critics by "labeling" them, causing the critic to defend himself against the "label," rather than insist the liberal answer the question, which usually they can't. I once challenged a liberal (airline pilot) who pontificated the old liberal saw, "the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer:" by asking him how much he made in a year. He said, "What's that got to do with it?" My answer was, "If you make more than $75,000 a year (which most airline pilots do), you're rich, according to the liberals. To which he replied, "Where do you get your information? From Rush Limbaugh? (the label) I asked him where he got his, and he said CNN. I replied, "Nuff said." The argument was over and he stalked off in a huff. I was a cab driver at the time and his partner gave me a big tip, saying, "I've been trying to shut him up since Kansas City with his liberal crap. I was glad to see that."
BORDER CONTROL
On border security, the first thing I'd do is unhandcuff the Border Patrol. The way I understand it, they carry guns for show only. They've got orders NOT to use them under any circumstances, and not to chase illegal aliens, even if they're smugglers. That's why two Border Control agents are in prison for ten or more years for doing their jobs. One of the first things I would do as president, is to pardon these men and compensate them fully for what they've been through. They would never have to work again if they didn't want to. If they did, I'd promote them to the jobs of the men who let them down while firing those men (or women).
ELIMINATE LOBBYISTS AND LOBBYING
Next, I would make lobbying and "junkets " paid for by lobbyists illegal. All "gifts," of any kind, no matter how well hidden, would be prohibited. Politicians would no longer be able to make questionable land deals and receive "speaking fees" while in office (Or after leaving office, if the speeches are for those they "regulated" while in office). They would no longer be allowed to go right from a government job to highly paid employment in the very industries they "regulated" while in office. No longer would somebody be able to come to Washington a pauper and go home a millionaire. Bill Clinton couldn't even make as much as his wife until he went to Washington, and now he won't shut up about how rich he is. People would still be able to try to sway politicians to their way of thinking, but would no longer be able to make a politician rich if they did what they wanted.
IRAQ
On the Iraq war, I'd do what it takes to WIN in Iraq, whatever that is. If it means getting rid of Ahmadjinidad or the "head honcho" in any country that helps terrorists, so be it. He needs to be given the "Saddam treatment." We actually won that war in the first week, and had Saddam "on the run" to his "hole in the ground." Now we're dealing with the remnants of his supporters, financed and led by agents from Iran. (They couldn't beat him in a war, so now they're taking advantage of his misfortune). I would "take the handcuffs off our troops" and allow them to do what is necessary to "clean out" all the nests of terrorists. I would be VERY careful in punishing them for mistaken "collateral damage," since the terrorists are well known to put women and children in front of themselves in battle.
EDUCATION
I would also move immediately for the dissolution of the National Education Association. This organization is not a "teacher's union." It is a way for the liberals and socialists to be able to force teachers to teach, not academics, but politically correct collectivism . Teachers still claim to be "underpaid," but teachers now "earn" more per year than just about anybody else, considering their three-month vacation. I would make a law against teaching anything but academics, and outlaw teaching political opinion as "fact," no matter which side the teacher is on. I would do away with any organization at any level, that "passed" on the politics of a potential teacher before he/she can be considered for employment. In other words, I would do everything I can to stop the schools from being a "training ground for socialists," as they are today.
GAY MATTERS
I would make a law prohibiting gay activists from being able to teach (in our schools) that being gay is "normal and natural," as is now being taught in some schools, principally in Massachusetts (Teddy Kennedy's "owned and operated" state). I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. If having sex with someone of your own sex seems good to you, I'm okay with that, and I'd never discriminate against you for it. But don't ever try and teach my children that being gay is "normal and natural." It isn't. Sex is for procreation (having babies, for those who don't know what that means), and gays cannot procreate without the participation and cooperation of a member of the opposite sex, in some fashion. If any same-sex couple ever (provably) has a baby without the participation of a member of the opposite sex, let me know. I might change my mind. But I doubt that is ever going to happen.
I could go on and on because there are so many things the liberals, who ran as conservatives and lied from one end to the other to get elected, but I won't. If you can figure out what individualism is, you know what else I'll do. I don't subscribe to collectivism (socialism, communism, Nazism, etc.) in any form, under any name. If I were to be elected, you wouldn't be asked (ordered) to "share" what you've worked hard to earn with those who push each other out of the way to convince the politicians in charge of the largess that they are the "most needy." Being "needy" should never be a demand on someone else's earnings. If those who can't do for themselves are really "needy," it should be the individual's own decision whether or not to help them. Their money and property should never be taken from them for the benefit of another.
I am not "forming an "exploratory committee" because I do not intend to hire anybody to help in my campaign. I do not intend to try and raise any money and I am not accepting any contributions. I am "running." If someone wants to write my name in on a ballot, so be it. I don't expect to win, in fact, I don't want to. But I intend to have a lot of fun with this, and I will.