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: SpeakerofTruth, Conservative

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Candidate Declaration: SpeakerofTruth, Conservative

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

In Short, my platform is simple:

Our society needs to be secure, but not at the expense of our constitutional freedoms. We shouldn't have to be, as citizen's of this country, worried about being videotaped every where we go. Security shouldn't have a "tag" on it.

To Expand:

I am SpeakerofTruth, and I ask you for your vote as the next President of the United States. I hope you will sincerely take everything that I have got to say into consideration.

We are definitely living in perilous and desperrate times. The world is getting ever smaller and our economy is getting ever larger. When I think about our nation I wonder if our forefathers, from 232 years ago, ever foreseen a period such as we are currently in.

After 9/11, our current president promised us a brighter,safer, less vulnerable future. Where is it? I ask. Our borders to the south and north of us remain porous. We continue to let a steady flow of illegal immigration into our nation while being told that it's "okay" because they do the work the rest of us won't. Well, I for one do not buy it.

As president, I will withdraw American troops from places such as Germany and France and place them on our borders. While this is not a cure all, it certainly is a step in the direction of finding a solution to the problem of a very porous border.

Of course, there is the whole issue of the quagmire that has beome Iraq. I didn't favor the United States getting into a conflict in Iraq, but I will certainly do everything that is within my power to solve the problem of Iraq and bring our troops home.

The main thing that the United States has to do is make sure that Iraq is not left defenseless. The whole idea of "cut and run" that many of, perhaps my future opponents, ashere to is just not applicable to reality. Reality states that we must finish the job but change the course. We cannot,as a nation, participate in the guerilla type of warfare that our enemies engage in and expect to win the war in Iraq.

As I sit here today, I have to wonder what someone like Abraham Lincoln would have thought of our efforts to "democratize" the world. I don't think he would have approved. To the mind of Lincoln,America was to be the last bastion of hope in the world. That certainly does not imply that he would have supported an effort to "democratize" a world that isn't ready for democracy.

Yet, we have some in our part who would suggest otherwise. What do they base this idealization upon. I am more than eager to gain a response.

People of this country no longer what excuses, they want answers. I believe that I have the answers to many of the problems. However, without a chance, I can never enact them. So, I plead that when you go to the voting booths this November, really vote your conscience. Please do not vote upon a candidate based on empty promises and delusional consensus.

Security shouldn't come with a price. Yet, our present security certainly has. The passing of the Patriot Act has certainly dulled any sense that security for the American public is going to come without cost. However, it need not be that way. I say that if the proper steps are taken, security can come without a cost to the American public. It comes with a secure border and secure ports. Otherwise, we are only taxing the American Citizen.

When I first decided to run in this election, I really didn't have aconcise view on the issues I wished to run on, but,as a Conservative, security, true security, is a basic tenet of the party.

I will make no grandiose economical promises to those who struggle, For without security, economy means little. What good is having a job, if you cannot even step outside of your door without worrying about if you will ever re-enter it? Yet, many will debate me on this issue. They fail to see the error of their "reasoning," and the cost it will expend upon the American citizen.

As a candidate:

I promise to uphold the Rules and Conditions of ATS

To answer all questions asked to the best of my ability

I will not be libelous or slanderous to other candidates

I will always reply respectfully

If selected dring the primary, I will accept the nomination graciously.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Good luck SpeakerofTruth,

I look foward to running against you.

Jimmy1880



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Speaker

I am interested in your platform, but wondering what you will actually do to reach your goals.

What to do about illegal immigrants?

Do you support abortion?

What about the increasing violence all over this country, even in small rural areas?

How do you propose to "fix" social security?

I don't like being filmed, or anyone listening to my phone or Internet conversations. What other liberties that are lost are you speaking about? How do you purpose to protect us from terrorism here in the US?

What is your plan for leaving Iraq?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
Speaker

I am interested in your platform, but wondering what you will actually do to reach your goals.

What to do about illegal immigrants?

Do you support abortion?

What about the increasing violence all over this country, even in small rural areas?

How do you propose to "fix" social security?

I don't like being filmed, or anyone listening to my phone or Internet conversations. What other liberties that are lost are you speaking about? How do you purpose to protect us from terrorism here in the US?

What is your plan for leaving Iraq?


Well, the illegal immigrant issue, I am assuming you are talking about those that are already here, right? I think that the only way to effectively deal with those that are already here is to grant them citizenship. Yeah, offhandedly, I'd say we should go on a raid spree round them up and send them back to their country, but, in reality that would be a very arduous task. I think all we can do really, is secure our borders to help alleviate many more invading our nation.

What increasing violence? Violence is actually on the decline in most areas.

Social security? I actually think that the plan Bush ha proposed ios not a bad idea. Everyone degrades it, but I don't see anyone else coming up with any ideas. When one considers that the social security that exists today is being paid into by the smallest generation to the largest generation in our nation's history, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the present system is broke.

Well, the patriot act may not explicitly take a way the rights of the individual, put into the wrong hands it can certainly do much harm. Look at what the CIA has done with it. They have monitored your e-mails and phone calls. That shouldn't be. Unfortunately, an "eye in the sky" is probably the only true security solution. I don't like being filmed all of the time either but...

Iraq... well, that is indeed a conundrum, isn't it? Firstly, I didn't support us going over there, but, since we are over there to cut and run would be an indication to the rest of the world that we are weak indeed. Osama knew that America would not forestall any casualties. He knew that when the count began to reach anywhere near the 5000 mark, Americans would be crying to leave Iraq.

When one examines the history of Islamic warfare, it's quite clear what they do. They play a waiting game. They wait and wait until their opponent basically just backs away and then they go in for the kill. We cannot allow them to do that to us. There is too much at stake... Too much. Whether or not that was originally the case, I don't know, but it certainly is now.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth


As president, I will withdraw American troops from places such as Germany and France and place them on our borders. While this is not a cure all, it certainly is a step in the direction of finding a solution to the problem of a very porous border.


So the obligation of NATO mean nothing to you? And now that things are a little hard for the US, you want to go running home after creating a huge mess around the world!!


df1

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth


As president, I will withdraw American troops from places such as Germany and France and place them on our borders. While this is not a cure all, it certainly is a step in the direction of finding a solution to the problem of a very porous border.


So the obligation of NATO mean nothing to you? And now that things are a little hard for the US, you want to go running home after creating a huge mess around the world!!

It's about time the member countries of NATO assumed the obligations required to be called sovereign nations and accept the responsibility of providing for their own national security both economically & militarily. These so called nations can be nothing but grouchy puppets of the US government until they step up to this obligation. This isn't good for them and it isn't good for America. The Presidents sacred obligation above all others is to serve the American people. Pulling these troops home for the stated reason best serves the American people.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Allied forces are in Germany because of world war 2 after WW2 finished it was agreed that the allies would stay for a period of 50 years to make sure the Germans behaved. Then the garrisons in Germany were made constantly bigger because of the soviet threat, there are still thousands based in Germany. Britain and America are withdrawing troops gradually but there will always be some kind of presence there because of it's logistical value it is a hop off point to the middle east and Western Russia.

But I agree with speaker more radical controls of the borders are needed, if the amount of illegal immigration isn't stopped then in 10-20 years time the southern border states will no longer resemble America but will begin to look like south america. The risk of racially motivated riots and revolution wil rise immensly.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP


So the obligation of NATO mean nothing to you? And now that things are a little hard for the US, you want to go running home after creating a huge mess around the world!!



America is not indebted to Germany and France... I would love to see the amount of money that we have invested in such countries... NATO...
You are right, it means very little to me.

I certainly will not choose the safety of another nation at the cost of the safety of my own. That is not even a possibility in my honest opinion.

As far as America creating a "mess around the world." No, while there are areas where America can certainly be held accountable for misdeeds, but did they create the problems... Certainly not.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
What I would really like to do is create a country that is less instrumental in the affairs of other countries . We should be more concerned about our freedom and liberties here at home rather than trying to democratize the rest of the world. What right do we have to do that? Either a country accepts our way of life or they don't. If they don't, then they should have to deal with what comes with that decision without our interference or aid.



I don't mean to sound elitist or isolationist but I think at times that America would be better off, as would the rest of the world, if we just refrained from much of the interaction that we are involved in.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

As far as America creating a "mess around the world." No, while there are areas where America can certainly be held accountable for misdeeds, but did they create the problems... Certainly not.


So who created the mess in Iraq??

I think we can all accept that the US is the number one superpower in the world today. With being a global superpower comes responsibility. Are you advocating that the US take less of a lead globally?

Have you considered the impact on the rest of the world if the US were to withdraw so to speak?

And if you became president, would the America people be happy with taking a back seat on the world stage?


df1

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
So who created the mess in Iraq??

The US, EU, NATO and UN have operated in concert in the Mideast for over a century. The mess in Iraq is no exception.



we can all accept that the US is the number one superpower in the world today.

No other country is even close.



Are you advocating that the US take less of a lead globally?

I haven't heard SpeakerofTruth say anything of the kind.




Have you considered the impact on the rest of the world if the US were to withdraw so to speak?

The president is the leader of the US, not the leader of the rest of the world. His primary consideration should be the impact on America. If these other countries want to be led by the US president they should petition for that to happen and the US congress will take it under consideration. Until that time they should take their gripes to the UN.



would the America people be happy with taking a back seat on the world stage?

The US ceasing to bankroll the national security of all of these other countries is not taking a backseat in world leadership to anyone.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1



Have you considered the impact on the rest of the world if the US were to withdraw so to speak?

The president is the leader of the US, not the leader of the rest of the world. His primary consideration should be the impact on America. If these other countries want to be led by the US president they should petition for that to happen and the US congress will take it under consideration. Until that time they should take their gripes to the UN.


That's exactly how I was going to answer that question!!


The world is not the responsibility of the United States. Part of the reason that so many around the world hate the U.S is because it has indeed played the role of "protector and guider." That shouldn't be our responsibility.

If the U.S took more concern of its domestic affairs and less concern of the affairs of other sovereign nations, there would'nt be nearly as much ire as there currently is against the United States.

You may say to yourself, "Well, it sounds like your main concern is the welfare of your own." I will answer that you are correct indeed, and that should be the concern of any standing president of the U.S.

Yeah, the U.S should do good for other nations but not at the cost of being hated globally. No. As far as I can tell, the only thing the "good deeds" of the United States has gained is global ire for the nation. Our deeds are twisted to resemble "evil" by those who hate us. So, I suggest that in many instances we should refrain from acting at all. Let it play itself out. Let Pakistan and India settle their own nuclear dispute. Let Israel and Palestine find their own solution. Let them.

That isn't and shouldn't be considered a responsibility of the United States. The responsibility of the government of a sovereign nation is to "defend, uphold and support" the citizenry of that nation. It is not to go around the world mettling in the affairs of other nations.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Let Israel and Palestine find their own solution. Let them.


With the power of the jewish lobby, how would you as president resist this very powerful lobby?


A nuclear exchange in any part of the world, would have a huge impact of both the climate and then the ecomony of America.

Can you afford, as president to take such a back seat in world affairs?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

With the power of the jewish lobby, how would you as president resist this very powerful lobby?


A nuclear exchange in any part of the world, would have a huge impact of both the climate and then the ecomony of America.

Can you afford, as president to take such a back seat in world affairs?



The Jewish lobby? Unless you are one who believes that America is "owned" by the Jews, which some people do, then this "Jewish Lobby" is of little significance. I don't intend to debate conspiracy theories while I am on my campaign so I will just leave your first question alone.

A Nuclear exchange only has a radius of about 200 miles, anything beyond that point is going to be relatively unaffected. That's why all of these ideas about one or two nuclear bombs destroying the world is ridiculous. If I have a concern, it certainly would be the economic impact that such an event would have. Don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that America just necessarily idly sits by while the rest of the world goes down the toilet, but I also don't think that America being as pro-active as it currently is brings forth anything other than hatred for the U.S.

Here is what I would do. America is spread militarily all across the world. Is it not? Instead of having a military presence in these other countries, I would bring the troops back to the states and set up permanent dignitaries in the foreign nations to relay situations. What people don't realize is that if need be, America can have 500,000 troops in any geographical area with 3-4 days. There is no need for us to have permanent military settlements in a foreign nation.

I would, even though some argue that it would be a violation of the Posse Commitaus act, place about 20-30 thousand troops on both the Canadian and Mexican border to stem the tide of illegal immigration and "terroristic" threats.

When one realizes that only through national security can America be a true aid to the rest of the world, then things will go much more smoothly. America cannot do what it was established to do and be under unwarranted threat at the same time. It just can't happen.



[edit on 15-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I want to take this time to discuss some economic issues with you all. I know that it is something that is of importance to everyone.

When I look at what is happening to the Housing bubble right now, one thing comes to mind. Sub-prime lending. Banks are not doing research on the people they are making their housing loans to. Anytime a pizza delivery guy, who might make 20,000 a year, can go into a bank and declare he is making 100,000 a year and it fly, there is something wrong.

Now, I am not suggesting that banks quit loaning to people with less than perfect credit. However, if a person is already in 40-50 thousand dollars worth of debt, then it is no wonder that America is in the heap of trouble it is in.

What I would do is I would start making it a necessity that people present not only proof of their income, but also proof that they have credit at the places where they claim they have credit. You know the old saying, "You can't get blood out of a turnip?" Well, that is certainly true.


df1

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Banks are not doing research on the people they are making their housing loans to.

Don't you think that making loans to foreign governments is a much more serious problem dollar wise than bad home loans?



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Excuse me. I've got some questions relating to your primary platform positions.



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Our society needs to be secure, but not at the expense of our constitutional freedoms. We shouldn't have to be, as citizen's of this country, worried about being videotaped every where we go. Security shouldn't have a "tag" on it.


Your statement suggests that you might amend or abolish intrusive laws like the USA Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. Do you intend to place restrictions on the programs enacted by these laws?



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
We are definitely living in perilous and desperrate times. The world is getting ever smaller and our economy is getting ever larger. When I think about our nation I wonder if our forefathers, from 232 years ago, ever foreseen a period such as we are currently in.


When you refer to "perilous times," do you mean specifically terrorism, or something else?


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
After 9/11, our current president promised us a brighter,safer, less vulnerable future. Where is it? I ask. Our borders to the south and north of us remain porous. We continue to let a steady flow of illegal immigration into our nation while being told that it's "okay" because they do the work the rest of us won't. Well, I for one do not buy it.

Your statement suggest that you'd like to get tough on border enforcement. If so, what do you have in mind and how will you pay for it?



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
As president, I will withdraw American troops from places such as Germany and France and place them on our borders. While this is not a cure all, it certainly is a step in the direction of finding a solution to the problem of a very porous border.


Your critics will certainly say that you're espousing a modern form of isolationism. the loss of overseas bases would mean that our power-projection capablity would be deminished. This might cost the taxpayer fewer dollars, but how much safer would we be...really?


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Of course, there is the whole issue of the quagmire that has beome Iraq. I didn't favor the United States getting into a conflict in Iraq, but I will certainly do everything that is within my power to solve the problem of Iraq and bring our troops home.


It's possible that your good intentions in Iraq might require U.S. bases in other countries to keep the troops fully supplied until they can make Iraq a safer place. How do you reconcile this with your stated goal of pulling troops out of Europe and other places?



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
As I sit here today, I have to wonder what someone like Abraham Lincoln would have thought of our efforts to "democratize" the world. I don't think he would have approved. To the mind of Lincoln,America was to be the last bastion of hope in the world. That certainly does not imply that he would have supported an effort to "democratize" a world that isn't ready for democracy.


Your statement suggests that you favor isolationism. How do you avoid the pitfalls of international diplomacy that would arise when we no longer have the capability to militarily effect events in other parts of the world?



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
People of this country no longer [want] excuses, they want answers. I believe that I have the answers to many of the problems. However, without a chance, I can never enact them. So, I plead that when you go to the voting booths this November, really vote your conscience. Please do not vote upon a candidate based on empty promises and delusional consensus.


Assuming that you got your way, and the new policy paradigm for America was "stay at home," how would you convince other world leaders to take you seriously?



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Security shouldn't come with a price. Yet, our present security certainly has. The passing of the Patriot Act has certainly dulled any sense that security for the American public is going to come without cost. However, it need not be that way. I say that if the proper steps are taken, security can come without a cost to the American public. It comes with a secure border and secure ports. Otherwise, we are only taxing the American Citizen.


How, specifically, can you guarantee port and border security at not cost to the American citizen?



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I will make no grandiose economical promises to those who struggle, For without security, economy means little. What good is having a job, if you cannot even step outside of your door without worrying about if you will ever re-enter it? Yet, many will debate me on this issue. They fail to see the error of their "reasoning," and the cost it will expend upon the American citizen.


Your statement suggests that you would cut taxes. If so, how do you plan to pay for increased border and port security? Would those expenses be covered by a smaller military? Knowing that you face a Congress that isn't big on military spending, would you reduce the defense budget?



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
DF1 stated:


Don't you think that making loans to foreign governments is a much more serious problem dollar wise than bad home loans?


Certainly. However, I think we need to correct our domestic problems before we deal with some of the international issues.

Oldham said:

Your statement suggests that you might amend or abolish intrusive laws like the USA Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. Do you intend to place restrictions on the programs enacted by these laws?


Well, obviously I wouldn't be in favor of abolishing all of the new laws or organizations that have been created. However, my main focus would be on the draconian aspects of these Acts. Like there are some unwarranted search and seizure issues that need to be addressed within these Acts.

Oldham said:

When you refer to "perilous times," do you mean specifically terrorism, or something else?


Well, terrorism is a big part of it,yes. However there are many other issues that have to be addressed. The environment is major concern of mine. I think we certainly need to work towards some form of alternative power. I think the most logical way to do that right now is to go into the direction of nuclear power.

Also, we must find a way to deal with the homeless issue here in the United States. I think that some of this money that we are using to invest in other nations could be used to produce homes and shelters for the homeless.

Oldham said:

Your critics will certainly say that you're espousing a modern form of isolationism. the loss of overseas bases would mean that our power-projection capablity would be deminished. This might cost the taxpayer fewer dollars, but how much safer would we be...really?


True. My critics will declare me an isolationist and claim that I aim to cause the United States to adopt the mentality of China on up until the 20th century. My answer to them is that they misunderstand what I am saying. I certainly am not a proponent of being selfish with our wealth. However, I do think we need to be more particular about who we share it with.

As far as withdrawing our troops from foreign nations, well, I have a simple answer. why remain where you are not welcome? Some will claim, "Well, we are not welcome in Iraq!!" Umm, that is false. As a matter of fact, a poll was just done in Iraq where 2/3rds of the population is very much in favor of U.S forces being there for now.

However, America has never been needed or wanted in many parts of the globe. So why remain? I say pull our troops out of regions where we are not appreciated and bring them home.

I suspect that putting troops on the border will make a substantial difference in the illegal immigration issue. Of course, we also need to concentrate on the Canadian border, not just the Mexican. If we are attacked again, it will most likely enter via the Canadian border.


It's possible that your good intentions in Iraq might require U.S. bases in other countries to keep the troops fully supplied until they can make Iraq a safer place. How do you reconcile this with your stated goal of pulling troops out of Europe and other places?


Well, it's important to realize that when I say we need to pull our troops out of certain countries, I mean countries where we are not welcome and haven't been for quite some time. There are many countries who hate us who would have no stability whatsoever if we weren't there. I say to those countries, since you loathe us being in your presence so greatly, let's see how you do without us.

I don't mean to be hateful, but, really, why remain somewhere where your presence is not wanted nor appreciated. There will be countries in the Middle east where we will have troops. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel. So, your suggestion of there being a problem really won't be a problem at all.


Assuming that you got your way, and the new policy paradigm for America was "stay at home," how would you convince other world leaders to take you seriously?



Serious? You mean as an international power or as a military power? Militarily, we would quit interfering in others affairs. However, the first time that we were attacked, we would find out the source of where those attacks came from and whatever country enabled them, they would have a very heavy price indeed to pay.

Internationally? Well, obviously in today's world when one speaks of "isolationism" we are talking about a lessening of involvement from world affairs, not a complete withdraw from it. We would still have relations with foreign governments. However, there would be no more bowing before hate in my administration.



Your statement suggests that you would cut taxes. If so, how do you plan to pay for increased border and port security? Would those expenses be covered by a smaller military? Knowing that you face a Congress that isn't big on military spending, would you reduce the defense budget?


No where do I promise to cut taxes. Here is what I said:

I will make no grandiose economical promises to those who struggle, For without security, economy means little.


It is implicitly, if not explicitly, stated in that comment that I make no claims of being able to unburden your economic situation. What I meant is that safety may very well come with an economic cost. However, if we cut out much of the oversea financing and pork-barrel spending that seems so popular among our politicians, this cost will be very attainable.

Look, we cannot continue to wish for safety, economic stability and maintaining a super power if we are going to continue to ship our jobs overseas. There has been a massive off-shoring of our jobs. I largely blame such agreements as NAFTA for this. Like Ross Perot said, "That whooshing sound you hear is your jobs going South of the border." He was right then, and he is right now.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join