It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candidate Declaration: xpert11, Reform

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

xpert11 for President



I, xpert11, hereby declare that I am running for the office of President of The United States and are running for the Reform party.

In short, my platform is simple:
Its time for leadership and change and to put America first.

To expand:
Here is an overview of my platform.
A military doctrine that will allow the US to win wars.
Put the needs of legal citizens ahead of illegal Aliens.
Legalize drugs.
More to come...


As a candidate for this office, running on this website, I promise the following:

I will uphold the Terms & Conditions of AboveTopSecret.com at all times

I will conduct a campaign that focuses on issues

I will seek to always answer issue-based questions with direct honesty and integrity

I will not, through my actions, communicate libelous or slanderous statements or advertising messages directed toward other candidates in the primaries or general election

I will not, through my inaction, allow libelous or slanderous statements or advertising messages directed toward other candidates to be made on my behalf

I will participate in every debate and avail myself to questions from the general population

If selected in a primary election, I will accept the nomination to run for my party for The President of The United States and select a capable running mate for my Vice President

I understand that if I fail to live up to the higher standards described herein, I may voluntarily or forcibly be required to end my candidacy or Presidency if elected.




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I'll ask you the same questions I'm going to ask everyone -

Questions for the potential future president of the USA -

1 - Your stand on the rights of Americans to own and bear arms....

2 - Your stand on abortion laws ....

3 - Your stand on changing the Constitution to exclude gay marriage .....

4 - Your economic platform ....

5 - Your stand on the 'death tax' .....

6 - Your stand on the war in Iraq and how/when (IF?) to end it .....

7 - Your stand on our security wall on the southern US border (and then on the Northern border?) ...

8 - Your stand on other security issues such as security in our ports etc ...

9 - Your stand on intelligence gathering within the USA in regards to terrorism and constitutional rights -

10 - Your VP and cabinet appointments? (any for me? Just teasing on that )

11 - Your education in America fix? (or does it need it?) Your thoughts on what to do with 'no child left behind'....

12 - Your policy for foreign aid and 'forgiving debts' .....

13 - What federal funding, if any, would you put into medical research etc etc? Including FETAL stem cell use yes or no??

14 - Afghanistan? Your policy there ....

15 - Oil companies, pharmacuticals, etc etc? Any thoughts in that area as far as your administration goes?

16 - The United Nations .... Your policy and thoughts in regards to that and how your administration would deal with them??

17 - Amnesty for illegals or send them back (anchor babies and all)??

18 - NASA ... further funding, more funding, less funding, a complete change ??? What would you and your administration support in this area?

19 - ANWAR ... drill or not drill? Alaska's state right to drill (they want to) or will your administration forbid it due to the possibilty that the Refuge could be damaged in the future?

20 - Alternative energies .... Solar, wind mill farms, etc ... what are your thoughts and plans in this area to make us no longer at the mercy of anti-American oil rich countires?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I will answer the questions that I can give a simple answer to.
2 - Your stand on abortion laws ....


I'm pro choice I make no bones about it I will outline my reasons why at a later date.



3 - Your stand on changing the Constitution to exclude gay marriage .....


No way I will deal with Constitution amendment that I support at a later date but if your a AP regular you will probably already know what it is.



10 - Your VP and cabinet appointments? (any for me? Just teasing on that )


All appointments would be based on merit.








[edit on 25-2-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I'll be asking all candidates this.


What is your opinion the current election age, that is having to be at least
35 to become president, should it be lowered, raised or stay the same?

What are your thoughts on the requirement that one must be born in the
United States to become president, should it be changed or stay the
same?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by FlyersFan
3 - Your stand on changing the Constitution to exclude gay marriage .....


No way I will deal with Constitution amendment that I support at a later date but if your a AP regular you will probably already know what it is.


Under the U.S. Constitution, the President really has nothing to do with Constitutional Amendments, so I think this is a fairly impertinent question FF..


Anyway, you look like a powerful candidate too xpert11! This is going to be a tough choice.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has proven that the current US military doctrine is to inflexible. Currently the US military only knows how to fight one kind of war that is a conventional war fought with a massive amount of fire power. The US military needs to be able to win a counter insurgency war.
Yes men are very dangerous and are used by people to future there own agendas at the expense of the US military.


Xpert11 Military Doctrine



  1. Don't fight a war unless you gain something from victory
  2. Ensure that the enemy is given no haven
  3. Don't fight a war where there is no way out.
  4. The ability to fight both a conventional war and counter insurgency wars. The US military needs to be able to switch between fighting both kinds of war.
  5. Have the flexibility to undertake wars as outlined above.
  6. Never appoint a yes man to the military leadership.
  7. Don't fight a war that has no clear strategic objective.


Such changes must begin at the bottom. The next generation of leaders must be prepared to fight wars using xpert11 doctrine. Current military leaders who are able to embrace this doctrine need to be encouraged and if appropriate promoted.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 2-3-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Foreign Policy Part One.

Another Cold War is on the offering. An Economic war is in its begins the participants are the USA, China, Russia and India. Russia and China are natural allies . China is using its economic growth to extend its political clout across the globe. Russia is also using its natural gas resources to extend its political clout in Europe.

Who will side with the USA ?
At this stage the only certainly would be Australia and Japan. The US needs maintain its current alliances and find new allies. Any disagreements about Iraq need to be put in the past where they belong. India could take either side or walk a tight rope.

To win the Economic war the US needs to put some of its own needs first and gear its economy and thinking for the 21st century. India population is now a billion people with a growing middle class this is something the US must take advantage of. Trade links must be established with India so that the countries eyes lay away from China and Russia.

But that isn't the toughest task at hand. Russia has natural resources and China is the manufacturing base of the world. The China - Russia axis needs to be kept politically seperate as much as possible without causing to much tension between the two nations. Trade is only one part of the answer. Widespread corruption in Russia makes investing in that country's in a legal manner a less then a attractive proposition.

Energy independence in Europe would help to put an end to Russia's political clout in the area. The US economy has to be in a position where it is in no danger of being the worlds number one economy. The US must build political bridges to Russia without excepting a return to a Soviet style of Government. It is hard to gauge what directions the Russian government will take but that isn't a reason to do nothing.

Chinas growing political influence around the globe needs to be counted the US and its allies. The means of doing this vary according to the region. In Africa less money needs to go to corrupt government officials and more help needs to be given to those who suffer the most . Its time to teach man how to fish. GE/GM crops would used to help solve Africa's food shortage as well providing ideas that the US can sell to the world.

In short a framework needs to be found that will allow the US to contain or reduce the influence of the rise of China ,Russia and India. India will be the key middle man splitting Russia and China could well rely on India siding with US. Once India has sided with US political pressure needs to be applied to the Indian government to ensure that India dosnt side with Russia or China.
If China and Russia are competing for ties with India there may be less focus on there own relationship.

The key will be not to give the game away before India becomes a to important economic power for China and Russia to ignore. the best way to avoid the economic war turning into a shooting war is for the US and its allies to maintain a sufficient military deterrent.



[edit on 16-3-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
What is your opinion the current election age, that is having to be at least
35 to become president, should it be lowered, raised or stay the same?


In terms of the ATS presidential election you should vote based on the merit of someone's policy's rather then there age.



What are your thoughts on the requirement that one must be born in the
United States to become president, should it be changed or stay the
same?


In terms of the ATS presidential election people should be elected on merit rather then there birthplace.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Emigration policy.
Border Security
Emigration should work for the US not the other way. The days of the open border need to come to an end. All the US borders need to be secured . As for the Mexico and Canadian borders it important to bear in mind that a fence will only form a part of the solution. Measures have need to be taken to detect tunnels and so on.

Border security shouldn't be provided by volunteer's. Any existing agency's should be extended or if needed a land version of the Coast Guard will be created.

Tourists and other visitors need to be prevented from becoming over stayers. Tourists and visitors have the means of extending there visa or applying for citizenship provided they no an over stayer already.

Other Measures.
Federal Education , Welfare , Health and any of kind of funding will be denied to those who aren't legal citizens or residents. States that don't require proof of citizenship or permanent residency will be denied Federal funding.


The Existing Problem.
Current the number of illegal aliens in the US numbers somewhere between four to seven million people. To get people some perspective the population of New Zealand is four million people.

Due to the sheer number of illegal aliens a new means is needed to prove that a person is a legal citizen or resident . An ID card would be issued to any one who has proven that they are an legal citizen or resident.

For those who come came to the US illegally they will face deportation . A person will be given a chance to prove why they should stay in the US . Of course this wouldn't be ease and there would be no tolerance of other crimes committed and such things as the level of English and career would be factors as well.

Bureaucracy would not be allowed to get in the way of tracking the amount of time people spend in the US to prevent over stayers. A database that all government departments have access to would be used to track tourists and visitors.

If an illegal alien has had a child in the US and the mother faces deportation the mum will be given the option of adopting her out in the US.

A crackdown on business who hire illegal aliens along with increased fines or jail time. The Laws would be enforced. Random workplace inspections would be a part of enforcing emigration laws.

Emigrant Labour.
Emigrants should only take jobs if there is a shortage of legal citizens or residents or a skills shortage.
Quotas would decide how many working visas are given out each year. The quota would be adjusted depending on how many legal citizens or residents fill in jobs.

Requirements for those who wish to become citizens or a permanent residents.
A willingness to integrate into American Society.
Knowledge of the English language or in the very least a willingness to learn and continue improving a persons English language skills.
Have a skill that is in demand or the ability to fill in a job under the quota system .

For those who don't meet the requirements .
People that don't meet the requirements will be given the opportunity to serve in the US military for five years if they are fit to do so. Internment camps will be set up this is where the people in question will have there English , Maths and Science brought up to the US military standards.

If your prepared to die for the USA you have earned the right to be a Citizenship.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Excuse me, sir. I have a few questions for the candidate. I'd like to ask some follow-ups to your positions on national security.



Originally posted by xpert11
Emigration policy. Border Security. Emigration should work for the US not the other way. The days of the open border need to come to an end. All the US borders need to be secured.


Under what legal precedent will you justify this policy? I ask because its likely that you will face more than one court challenge as you move towards this new 'standard' in geographic security. Given that you may face a holstile Congress, would you be willing to accept a phased plan that would move gradually towards your goal?



Originally posted by xpert11
As for the Mexico and Canadian borders it important to bear in mind that a fence will only form a part of the solution. Measures have need to be taken to detect tunnels and so on.


Assuming that you can get Congress and the courts to see things your way, how will you pay for this effort? Would you be willing to raise tarrifs or taxes in order to pay for these increased security measures?



Originally posted by xpert11
Border security shouldn't be provided by volunteer's. Any existing agency's should be extended or if needed a land version of the Coast Guard will be created.


Expansion of the appropriate Federal agencies to handle the new duties you suggest doesn't sound like reform. how would you sell this to the American people? How would you pay for it?



Originally posted by xpert11
Tourists and other visitors need to be prevented from becoming over stayers. Tourists and visitors have the means of extending there visa or applying for citizenship provided they no an over stayer already.


It sounds like you are proposing an expansion of recently implemented Homeland Security measures. Are you in favor of a national ID card? Where do you draw the line between tourist tracking and anti-terrorist surveillnace? How could you implement this without increasing the size of the Federal government?



Originally posted by xpert11
Other Measures. Federal Education , Welfare , Health and any of kind of funding will be denied to those who aren't legal citizens or residents. States that don't require proof of citizenship or permanent residency will be denied Federal funding.


What you're suggesting would require a great deal of new legislation to implement. Could we expect to see that legistion sent to Capital Hill during your first 100 days in office? If so, what concessions are you prepared to make to keep these policy items on the fast track?



Originally posted by xpert11
The Existing Problem. Currently, the number of illegal aliens in the US numbers somewhere between four to seven million people. To get people some perspective the population of New Zealand is four million people.

Due to the sheer number of illegal aliens a new means is needed to prove that a person is a legal citizen or resident . An ID card would be issued to any one who has proven that they are an legal citizen or resident.


Are you advocating for an national ID card? If the answer is yes, do you intend to follow up on recent Real ID legislation that is already in effect? What's your plan to make sure this goes through during the first few years of your Presidency?



Originally posted by xpert11
For those who come came to the US illegally they will face deportation . A person will be given a chance to prove why they should stay in the US . Of course this wouldn't be easy and there would be no tolerance of other crimes committed and such things as the level of English and career would be factors as well.


Do you think the Federal court system would be capable of processing so many new cases, given that they're already backlogged from routine domestic litigation? Would you be willing to ask Congress for the funding of internment camps? If so, how would you sell this idea to the American people?



Originally posted by xpert11
Bureaucracy would not be allowed to get in the way of tracking the amount of time people spend in the US to prevent over stayers. A database that all government departments have access to would be used to track tourists and visitors.


There is currently no unified standard for data collection and administration within the Federal bureaucracy. Should we assume that you would introduce legislation to demand such a universal standard for data collection and storage? How would you pay for it? Would you be willing to instruct the Justice Department to develop new surveillance guidelines for non citizens?



Originally posted by xpert11
If an illegal alien has had a child in the US and the mother faces deportation the mum will be given the option of adopting her out in the US.


Are you saying that the biological parent of an undocumented child would be allowed to put that child up for adoption here in the United States? If so, what is your legal precendent for this decision? Would you be willing to support additional funding to the States for adoptive programs that would make this possible?



Originally posted by xpert11
A crackdown on business who hire illegal aliens along with increased fines or jail time. The Laws would be enforced. Random workplace inspections would be a part of enforcing emigration laws.


When you say, "the laws would be enforced," are you suggesting new and tougher laws or just an increase in the number of police officers and judicial officials to handle the existing caseload and make it go faster? Would you be willing to spend more money on prisons and pre-trial holding facilities?



Originally posted by xpert11
Emigrant Labour. Emigrants should only take jobs if there is a shortage of legal citizens or residents or a skills shortage. Quotas would decide how many working visas are given out each year. The quota would be adjusted depending on how many legal citizens or residents fill in jobs.


What do you really mean when you say "quotas?" Would you be willing to instruct the Justice Department to fight for quotas, even though the Supreme Court has already ruled them to be unconstitutional? If so, how will you track the availability of jobs? Could small business ownwers expect some sort of tax break for taking on the burden of added costs associated with the tracking of their available jobs?



Originally posted by xpert11
Requirements for those who wish to become citizens or a permanent residents. A willingness to integrate into American Society.
Knowledge of the English language or in the very least a willingness to learn and continue improving a persons English language skills.
Have a skill that is in demand or the ability to fill in a job under the quota system .


Assuming that the Congress is willing to grant the legislation you ask for to make all this happen, how will potential deportees be able to make appeals? Should we assume that you'll have these internment camps built on Federal land? Would you be flexible on the Geneva conventions? How would you pay for these camps?



Originally posted by xpert11
For those who don't meet the requirements . People that don't meet the requirements will be given the opportunity to serve in the US military for five years if they are fit to do so. Internment camps will be set up this is where the people in question will have there English , Maths and Science brought up to the US military standards.


Does this mean you'll do away with the all-volunteer system? If citizenship is possible in five years for illegals who serve, what can we expect from your administration regarding officer promotions? What happens if natural-born U.S. citzens become a minority in our own military? With so many legislative items to consider, would you be more likely to do this during your second term?

You've certainly layed out an ambitious agenda.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Due to the scoop of the problem there may be no legal precedent. The borders coudnt be secured over night even if they need to be . So the process would be gradual the key would be to ensure that members of Congress don't stall the project. As for getting the laws passed My admin would be prepared to work with Congress providing the laws aren't passed in a state where they have no effect. Members of Congress who refuse to support the measure will come under fire for not having Americas interests at heart.

I will deal with paying for border security when I bring out a draft budget. I will say that if needed there will be options available. Reform comes in the sense that existing agency's or any new one will be able to do the job there spouse(SP?) to do.

The American people would be told that they deserve to come first . Americans should get the first crack at jobs and only have access to government services. The efficiently and co operation of government departments would be improved so its more about improving the existing situation rather then expanding the Federal government.

The ID card would act more like a drivers licence then a National ID card.
In terms of funding Internment camps Congress controls the money flow so its hard to get around them. Worse comes to worse a friendly Congressman could attach the bill for the spending to another bill that Congress is sure to vote for.

We would highlight how emigrants are/were taking jobs without putting anything back into the country. Then it would be pointed out that American interests come first before that of other peoples. That the reasoning behind the internment camps and that is what the American people would be told.

Also the people in question aren't entirely being denied the chance at a better life were just asking for something in return. This and other related Bills would be brought before Congress in the first 100 days those bums who have three day weeks and fund pork projects aren't going to know what hit them.

A universal method or methods of information gathering dose need to be implemented but I will deal with that when my National security is brought out.

Are you referring to changes that would be made to the bill so it will pass or concessions made to Congress in return for support ?

Bills that deal with quotas have passed Congress in the past.
There is the issue of how people that aren't Americans would have constitutional rights but thats another topic. When I was looking into this matter I didn't find a case of the quotas being found to be unconstitutional.

People would only be monitored after they have overstayed the system will ensure that people have had the chance to avoid breaking the law. Since Marijuana would be legalized under my admin this would help to free up the court system for emigration cases. The penalty's for hiring illegals would be increased and a blind eye wouldn't be turned to the problem just because the interests of big business are at risk.

Money that would have been spend on giving Federal funding to illegal aliens could be diverted to funding the adoption program. Biological parents who cant remain in the US will be able to adopted there children if they were born in the US. On another matter the Geneva convention dosnt apply to immigrants period.

People such as refugees who are awaiting there emigration status would interned. Someone who has broken the emigration laws blatantly and is trying to avoid being deported would be in a jail cell. Tracking jobs involves keeping track of the economy and interlinking of government departments more then forcing red tape on employers . If a employer is unable to fill in vacancy's with American labour and he/she faces a labour shortage I'm sure that she/he would be happy to fill in a form.

As for oversight the Department of Justice seem to be the logical choice .
Well if natural-born U.S. citzens become a minority in the US military then it happens we don't live in a perfect world. As for promotions even thou were heading towards another topic I still want to answer your questions.

Military Personal should be promoted on merit and should not face discrimination based on there birth place. Immigrants who would be suitable and are willing to train as officers would be given preference. Of course my admin would try fill the void with the current crop or future officers from US citizens. The time frame of the passing of the bill would depend on the speed that other reliant bills get passed. For example until internment camps are required to implement the idea .

If I have failed to answer a question let me know and I will answer it .
This measures I outline are required due to nothing been done about the problem in the past.







[edit on 18-3-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I'd like to follow up on my earlier line of questioning.



Originally posted by xpert11
Due to the scoop of the problem there may be no legal precedent. The borders coudnt be secured over night even if they need to be. So the process would be gradual the key would be to ensure that members of Congress don't stall the project. As for getting the laws passed My admin would be prepared to work with Congress providing the laws aren't passed in a state where they have no effect. Members of Congress who refuse to support the measure will come under fire for not having Americas interests at heart.


Your statement suggests that you are for State's rights. You seem to make the assumption that some of the States will pass laws that conflict with your agenda. Assuming that any ofthe States choose to go their own way on immigration policies, how will you justify putting Congressional leaders "under fire" if they don't do things your way?



Originally posted by xpert11
I will deal with paying for border security when I bring out a draft budget. I will say that if needed there will be options available. Reform comes in the sense that existing agency's or any new one will be able to do the job there spouse(SP?) to do.


That sounds like a veiled reference to increased spending. Would you be willing to increase the size of Federal bureaucracy if you thought it was necessary to get the job done?



Originally posted by xpert11
The American people would be told that they deserve to come first . Americans should get the first crack at jobs and only have access to government services. The efficiently and co operation of government departments would be improved so its more about improving the existing situation rather then expanding the Federal government.


Are you saying that reforms to bureaucratic process will be enough to make sure that Federal agencies can fulfill the expanded roles you have in mind? How would you enact these reforms? Could we spect to see new legislation?



Originally posted by xpert11
The ID card would act more like a drivers licence then a National ID card.


Could you please explain what you see as the difference between an identification card and a driver's license?



Originally posted by xpert11
In terms of funding Internment camps Congress controls the money flow so its hard to get around them. Worse comes to worse a friendly Congressman could attach the bill for the spending to another bill that Congress is sure to vote for.


Your statement implies that you'd be willing to trade favors to get what you want. What would a Senator or Representative have to do in order to make your "friendly" list?



Originally posted by xpert11
We would highlight how emigrants are/were taking jobs without putting anything back into the country. Then it would be pointed out that American interests come first before that of other peoples. That the reasoning behind the internment camps and that is what the American people would be told.


We're back to those internment camps again. Would you be asking that these facilities be built on Federal land? Would you adopt the Geneva Conventions as the model for the treatment of detainees?



Originally posted by xpert11
Also the people in question aren't entirely being denied the chance at a better life were just asking for something in return.


Can you be more specific about what you're asking illegal immigrants to do?



Originally posted by xpert11
This and other related Bills would be brought before Congress in the first 100 days those bums who have three day weeks and fund pork projects aren't going to know what hit them.


Sounds like you are ready to do battle with Congress. Given your harsh characterizations, what will you do to win support in the House and Senate?



Originally posted by xpert11
A universal method or methods of information gathering dose need to be implemented but I will deal with that when my National security is brought out.




Originally posted by xpert11
do you have advisors who will help craft your national seucrity strategy? If so, would you care to name them?



Originally posted by xpert11
Bills that deal with quotas have passed Congress in the past.
There is the issue of how people that aren't Americans would have constitutional rights but thats another topic. When I was looking into this matter I didn't find a case of the quotas being found to be unconstitutional.


You might want to check with your legal advisor and get back to us on this one.



Originally posted by xpert11
People would only be monitored after they have overstayed the system will ensure that people have had the chance to avoid breaking the law.


What you suggest would put a massive strain on both Federal and State court systems. Will your ourtist monitoring program involve increased funding for immigration and border security? If so, how will you pay for these things?



Originally posted by xpert11
Since Marijuana would be legalized under my admin this would help to free up the court system for emigration cases.


Your statement suggests that you would introduce legislation early in your first year to de-criminalize marijuana. How do you plan on getting this law passed wthout holding up the rest of your agenda?



Originally posted by xpert11
The penalty's for hiring illegals would be increased and a blind eye wouldn't be turned to the problem just because the interests of big business are at risk.


Knowing that you'd face a hostile Congress, how will you build support for these reforms? What you're asking for will add a lot of costs for small business owners. Realizing what this would do to the case load of both State and Federal courts, are you will to be flexible when it comes to implemenation?



Originally posted by xpert11
Money that would have been spend on giving Federal funding to illegal aliens could be diverted to funding the adoption program. Biological parents who cant remain in the US will be able to adopted there children if they were born in the US.


Which Federal departments and agencies do you see being responsible for this adoption program?



Originally posted by xpert11
On another matter the Geneva convention dosnt apply to immigrants period.


Are there any existing laws that would apply to life inside the internment camps that you propose?



Originally posted by xpert11
People such as refugees who are awaiting there emigration status would [be] interned. Someone who has broken the emigration laws blatantly and is trying to avoid being deported would be in a jail cell.


Tracking jobs involves keeping track of the economy and interlinking of government departments more then forcing red tape on employers . If a employer is unable to fill in vacancy's with American labour and he/she faces a labour shortage I'm sure that she/he would be happy to fill in a form.


The inter-linked computer systems you're proposing will be expensive and they'll take a long time to put in place. The paperwork requirements you're suggesting will mean additional expenses to employers. How will you pay for these things?



Originally posted by xpert11
Well if natural-born U.S. citzens become a minority in the US military then it happens we don't live in a perfect world.


That seems rather un-patriotic. As the Commander-in-Chief, how would you ensure the loyalty of the military once it was made up of mostly non-citizens? How would any future Congress be able to trust such a force that could destabilize our national security?



Originally posted by xpert11
Military Personal should be promoted on merit and should not face discrimination based on there birth place. Immigrants who would be suitable and are willing to train as officers would be given preference.


Your statement suggests that non-citizens would somehow have better promotion potential than actual citizens. With loyalty issues in mind, how do you jsutify this policy?



Originally posted by xpert11
Of course my admin would try fill the void with the current crop or future officers from US citizens. The time frame of the passing of the bill would depend on the speed that other reliant bills get passed. For example until internment camps are required to implement the idea.


Would you be willing to recruit future members of the military from the populations of the internment camps you propose? How would you justify doing this when you've previously said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to illegal immigrants?



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I was more referring to the fact that the Bill might become so watered down that it wont serve its original purpose rather then state rights. If the Congressional leaders support a State that is refusing to secure the borders then the leaders deserve to come under fire for contributing to the existing problem. The idea isn't to move in and trample all over the states . My admin would be happy to work with the states in terms of integrating current security measures e.t.c

As for how my admin will pay for this I haven't given details because I don't want to bring out my budget a bit at a time but lets just say once Marijuana becomes legalized it can be taxed. Licenser's to sell and grow Marijuana can also be sold.

As for reforming the Federal agency's the goal is to improve them so that they will be able to do the jobs required with out increase in the Federal bureaucracy. Most of the improvements would be internal but some changes would require legislation.

In order to get on the "friendly list " as you put it a Senator or Representative would have support the concept of what we are doing and have an open minded. Providing the destination is the same it dosent matter what roads you take.

A driver's license means that you are legally entitled to drive on the road. A driver's license can be used for ID to buy booze but that isn't its primary purpose. A card that proves that you are legally entitled to access to federally funded services . The card could be used as a more general ID if the relevant details were on there but that isn't the cards primary purpose.


The Geneva Convention would be the model for the treatment of detainees legislation would brought in to ensure that there are no loop holes that can be exploited. I cant see any one voting against the humane treatment of detainees.

Those people who do not meet the requirements but still wish to become US citizens may be given the chance to serve in the US military. By serving in the US military a person has given a service and proven there loyalty to the US.

I am prepared to work with congress in a cooperative manner or to do battle with them. The first option is of course to work in a cooperative manner. You cant do anything if people don't take the Olive branch you extend to them .

There aren't any National Security advisor'(s) yet . Remember advisor's are has only has good as the ideas they have. It remains to be seen if that kind of role will be changed under other reforms I have install.

Congress could be painted as holding up the government . Much could depend on the relationship my admin has with Congress. Now to the adoption of young children my first preference would be to establish a frame work where by the children are handed over with funding to the relevant agency's run by the states.

There is the possibility of hearings being held in the internment camps to avoid placing any further burden on the court system if the current Court system was being over burdened. Over stayers would more then likely be deported under the law. Over time the measures we put in place will reduce the number of over stayers so any burden on the court system would also be reduced.

Employers don't necessary have to foot the bill for any of these reforms directly. All will be revealed when I bring out my budget. The internment could be built on land that is leased for 1000 years if "Federal land" isn't available.

What is un-patriotic about people who are willing to put there life on the line in order to gain US citizenship ?
One of the benefits of interning people is the ability to screen out undesirables. When you factor in screening and the physical and medical requirements of the US military there is a means in place that prevents undesirables joining the US military.

I didn't explain my comment on officers promotion properly. If there is a shortfall after officers who are US citizens have been or will be trained then the option of having immigrants served as officers would be taken. The Geneva Convention would serve as a model and not be replicated word for word the law would allow detainees to begin the process of joining the US military.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I see. Some of what you propose is pretty scary stuff. If you are elected, you'll be asking Congress to enact a large number of laws that will grant the Federal government a great deal of authority. How does this increase in authority create the "reform" portion of your platform? You talk about internment camps so...casually. What prevents your opponents from accusing you of an imperial plot to take over completely?



Originally posted by xpert11
I was more referring to the fact that the Bill might become so watered down that it wont serve its original purpose rather then state rights. If the Congressional leaders support a State that is refusing to secure the borders then the leaders deserve to come under fire for contributing to the existing problem. The idea isn't to move in and trample all over the states . My admin would be happy to work with the states in terms of integrating current security measures e.t.c.


It's quite possible that any number of States might choose to contest some of your legislation in Federal court. Would you welcome these challenges, or, would you move to crush them before they slow down the pace of your reforms?



Originally posted by xpert11
As for how my admin will pay for this I haven't given details because I don't want to bring out my budget a bit at a time but lets just say once Marijuana becomes legalized it can be taxed. Licenser's to sell and grow Marijuana can also be sold.


Your statement suggest that your budget...whatever it is...will hinge on the successful passage of marijuana legislation. What makes you so sure that Congress will move fast to pass this law? Do you intend to make some deals?



Originally posted by xpert11
As for reforming the Federal agency's the goal is to improve them so that they will be able to do the jobs required with out increase in the Federal bureaucracy. Most of the improvements would be internal but some changes would require legislation.


Internal improvements? Do you mean civil service reforms? If so, what are we talkingabout? Merit promotions and more comprehensive performance reviews? Or, would you simply ask the agencies to get rid of their dead wood?



Originally posted by xpert11
In order to get on the "friendly list " as you put it a Senator or Representative would have support the concept of what we are doing and have an open minded. Providing the destination is the same it dosent matter what roads you take.


that sounds a lot like influence peddling. How would you deal with the lobbyists who would most certainly try to meddle in Congressional efforts?



Originally posted by xpert11
A driver's license means that you are legally entitled to drive on the road. A driver's license can be used for ID to buy booze but that isn't its primary purpose. A card that proves that you are legally entitled to access to federally funded services . The card could be used as a more general ID if the relevant details were on there but that isn't the cards primary purpose.


With all due respect, you're arguing semantics. With the Real ID law in place, why don't you push for a National ID card?



Originally posted by xpert11
The Geneva Convention would be the model for the treatment of detainees legislation would brought in to ensure that there are no loop holes that can be exploited. I cant see any one voting against the humane treatment of detainees.


Are you going to use the existing definitions of detaineee, refugee, and non-combatant, that are in use by the Bush administration?



Originally posted by xpert11
Those people who do not meet the requirements but still wish to become US citizens may be given the chance to serve in the US military. By serving in the US military a person has given a service and proven there loyalty to the US.


In what way does military service guarantee loyalty?



Originally posted by xpert11
I am prepared to work with congress in a cooperative manner or to do battle with them. The first option is of course to work in a cooperative manner. You cant do anything if people don't take the Olive branch you extend to them.


So, battle only comes after the Congress has refused your initiatives? Considering that you won't have many friends in Congress, how can you expect to avoid conflict?



Originally posted by xpert11
There aren't any National Security advisor'(s) yet . Remember advisor's are only as good as the ideas they have. It remains to be seen if that kind of role will be changed under other reforms I have install.


Are you saying that you might not appoint a National Security advisor?



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I see. Some of what you propose is pretty scary stuff. If you are elected, you'll be asking Congress to enact a large number of laws that will grant the Federal government a great deal of authority.


What is scary about border security and detaining people while there immigration status is being determined ?


How does this increase in authority create the "reform" portion of your platform? You talk about internment camps so...casually.


Government agency's will be reformed . The only place the Federal government would be going that it hasn't already in terms of immigration is the interment camps and people have to prove that they live in the US legally if they want access to Federal funded services.



What prevents your opponents from accusing you of an imperial plot to take over completely?


Since my opponents have the right to free speech they are entitled to accuse my admin of what ever they want to. Putting the interests of Americans first wont lead to a Stalinist regime. If the States have concerns about the role of the Federal Government and there willing to talk my door would be open.




It's quite possible that any number of States might choose to contest some of your legislation in Federal court. Would you welcome these challenges, or, would you move to crush them before they slow down the pace of your reforms?


I need to make it clear that my admin would respect any decision made by the Supreme Court. We might appeal a decision but we would never try to overthrow the authority of the Supreme Court or any other court.

Now that I got that out of the way.

There are two options in this case find another means of archiving the same result or going the legal routes via the legal system. Since opponents could use the legal system to slow down legislative progress the first option may be the way to go.





Your statement suggest that your budget...whatever it is...will hinge on the successful passage of marijuana legislation. What makes you so sure that Congress will move fast to pass this law? Do you intend to make some deals?


An alternative will be put forward in my budget in case it is needed.





Internal improvements? Do you mean civil service reforms? If so, what are we talkingabout? Merit promotions and more comprehensive performance reviews? Or, would you simply ask the agencies to get rid of their dead wood?


All of the above with the exception(SP?) of comprehensive performance reviews unless they serve a practical purpose. Current systems that in place would be overhauled. Put another way no one should have to sent a letter twice to a government department because the department in question has lost the first letter.



that sounds a lot like influence peddling.


Sounds like American politics to me.



How would you deal with the lobbyists who would most certainly try to meddle in Congressional efforts?


Politics is a funny game if politicians think that there constituency widely support certain measures they will vote accordingly in order to save there own skin. As for the National ID card apart from my own reservations Congress will be slammed as it is given that immigration is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the Reform agenda.



Are you going to use the existing definitions of detaineee, refugee, and non-combatant, that are in use by the Bush administration?


Short answer is No more details to come.
While the concept isn't perfect and isn't needed to secure the borders. By serving in the US military people are proven there loyalties to the US.








Originally posted by xpert11
I am prepared to work with congress in a cooperative manner or to do battle with them. The first option is of course to work in a cooperative manner. You cant do anything if people don't take the Olive branch you extend to them.



Extending an Olive Branch to Congress there is a good chance that moderates will want to work with my admin and most of the conflict may be avoidable.




Are you saying that you might not appoint a National Security advisor?


You will have to wait and see on that one.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Further questions will be answered by this DVD presentation.
[plays DVD ]
"Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such films as how to find the Communist under your bed and why an intelligent population is dangerous to the government. "

" In this presentation all your questions will be answered about [Troy reaches out and reads the script attached to the wall ] Border... security . "

Little Johnny asks a question .
" Troy why do we need secure borders "
"well America is a complex social and economic pie , "

[Troy smiles and the credits role ]
[DVD is removed from the DVD player. ]




On a more serious note I am of course happy to continue answering people questions on the immigration matter. And no there no was a communist under everyone's bed and some governments more then others do have a tendency to fear an intelligent general population.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Foreign Policy part two.

Iraq.
Currently Iraq is a war being fought without a clear strategic objective with is a violation of my Military Doctrine . The recent troop surge is nothing more then the ensuring that the Iraq problem is passed on to someone else.

It is very important to remember that Iraq only exists on a map and was a product of the post World War One backstabbing. Iraq should have never been a country to start with this is reflected by many of the problems we have seen after Saddam was removed.

Partitioning Iraq alone tribal lines.
The only soloution to the Iraq problem that leads to an acceptable outcome is to partition Iraq along tribal lines.

What is an acceptable outcome in the geographical area known as Iraq ?
An acceptable out come would be that the area isn't ruled by some Islamic regime that would pose a greater threat then the area did under Saddam.

Aside from the security threat the Kurds have made remarkable progress compared to the rest of the country and they deserve to continue there progress.

When Iraq is partitioned US forces will be redeployed to help the new nations with border security and other security tasks. People who have married and/or have married and have kids across ethnic lines will be able to select the state they wish to live in as a family. While this would mean Iraq isnt 100% truly divided along tribal lines a lot of social upheaval will be avoided.

An independent Kurdistan will be recognized . Turkey current borders will be respected . The US military will provide military protection should Turkey decided to go an ill advised course of action against the new nation of Kurdistan.

Once Iraq has been partitioned the new nations borders will be closed to allow elections in some of the new nations and to prevent interference from outside forces. When it comes to the creation of new security forces a screening process would be put in place to weed out extremists and other criminal elements. The emphasise would be on quality and not creating sheer numbers of police and other security personal.

Any financial aid would depend any money being spent accounted for and the new nations taking steps towards a democratic state as Iraq as a whole as proved this cant always be done over night.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I've got a few forieng policy question for you.

1. If elected, what position will you direct the State Department to take regarding China?

2. What is your position on the North American Union?

3. Who will you consider as your Secretary of State, and why?



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Since the Secretary of State runs the State Department although he/she still answers to the president. I would work with my Secretary of State to ensure that the State Department treats China as a rising economic Super Power who needs to be kept politically seperate from Russia and India.

Your question is a bit open ended are you after more specific details ?

I would be open to the idea of a North American Union providing there are benefits for the US and the US dosnt have to give up border security. It is important that the US government dosnt neglect South America while its eyes are focused elsewhere.

At this stage there isnt an obvious (Real Life ) candidate for the position of Secretary of State. I'm more concerned about a persons background rather then there political beliefs. Providing a persons political beliefs don't get in the way of doing there job it dosnt matter if the person dosnt tow the line 100%.

I would offer you the job but I would want your talents on the domestic front.
Whether or not you serve in my admin is another matter entirely and Im pretty sure I know that the answer is NO.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
With all due respect, you'll have to win your party's nomination before you can think about how I would respond to any job offers. I'm just here to ask questions.

In your own words, what sets you apart from the other reform candidates?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join