Targeting Groups
From Nola Wiki
[edit] Fiscal Conservatives
- walks the walk, with a 20 year record to prove it
- votes according to principle, not party
- never votes for or authors pork
- has never voted for a tax raise
- has never voted for an unbalanced budget
- favors a transition to sound currency
- favors changing to an affordable foreign policy
- opposes an unaffordable welfare state without slashing benefits for those dependent on them
- votes against needless spending, even when his attached earmarks would pay out to his district
- named the Tax-Payers Best Friend by the Tax-Payers Union of America
- advocates free trade, domestic and international
- opposes managed trade, disguised as free trade agreements
- opposes socialized health care
- advocates removing government imposed "solutions" to lowering health care costs, as they are counter-productive
- opposes mandated free services for illegal aliens
[edit] 1. Cutting Taxes and Spending: Talks the Talk, AND Walks the Walk
Congressman Ron Paul has been recognized as a top advocate for taxpayers in the U.S. Congress for the tenth year in a row, earning the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union’s annual award as a “Taxpayers’ Friend” for 2006. Only 30 of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives earned similar honors last year. Over 10 terms in congress, Dr. Paul has never once voted to increase taxes and has consistently voted for the least amount of spending, returning surplus funds from his office to the Treasury Department every year. As President, Dr. Paul would abolish the IRS and favor a repeal of the 16th amendment. While he favors a FAIR tax or flat tax over the current system, he wishes to replace the income tax with nothing, which is possible if we change our foreign policy and our entitlement system. Spending has increased so much over the past 10 years, that if we were to simply introduce the year 1998's congressional budget next year, we would have a balanced budget without collecting a single dollar through the income tax (although I do question whether or not this figure takes into account inflation).
[edit] 2. Dr. Paul has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget
Government borrowing is a tax on future generations. Printing money through the Federal Reserve erodes the value of the dollar, subjecting the poor and middle-class to rising prices, while harming our ability to trade internationally. Fiscal conservatism and budget deficits are not compatible. A borrow-and-spend Republican is little different from a tax-and-spend Democrat. Neither have any place in our White House.
[edit] 3. Loyalty to the Tax-Payer
Dr. Paul has shown allegiance to fiscal conservative principles, not party politics, often ignoring the party line or refusing to trade votes for unnecessary spending. This has extremely hurt his access to the party's soft money for campaign fund-raising, yet he is consistently re-elected by the people for his tough stand against bigger government.
[edit] 4. A bane to special interests
Dr. Paul has never voted for or authored pork-barrel legislation. Special interest lobbyists rarely approach him, as they know he will not waver. Even when he earmarks money to his district in spending bills, he debates and votes against the legislation. While he is generally against earmarked spending in general, he feels it is the least corrupt method of spending tax money and uses it for the benefit of his constituents. Ideally for Dr. Paul, his constituents wouldn't be taxed this money in the first place, and such spending wouldn't exist.
[edit] 5. End Global Welfare
Our foreign policy of global interventionism, including nation-building, policing the world, foreign aid, and needless wars, is costing American tax-payers nearly one trillion dollars a year. Dr. Paul would replace this with a non-interventionist policy that promotes the defense and prosperity of Americans, who could then use their own judgment in choosing which foreign governments or people should receive their hard-earned money. By bringing home our troops from the 130+ foreign nations they are stationed, we could end the root cause of terrorism (foreign occupation), while truly protecting our borders, without increasing taxes or spending. By ending foreign aid and sanctions, we would avoid creating enemies through entangling alliances and being forced to use military threats and actions to suppress former allies of convenience, such as Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. Many critics claim that our foreign policy is required to secure cheap oil; however, Europe pays the same price for crude oil as we do. Being the largest oil consumer in the world, it makes little sense for oil-producing nations to cut supply or refuse to trade with us, which would only serve to make them less wealthy. Even Osama bin Laden has said that Arabs have no use for oil, as they cannot drink it and would gladly trade it to us at any marketplace. Few can claim that the $500,000,000,000+ Iraq War has been offset with lower oil prices or any other economic advantages (except for the military and oil contractors who have been granted huge government contracts).
[edit] 6. End domestic welfare without leaving people on the streets
Welfare states have led a similar life to socialist states: dependency on government services rises, taxes rise, productivity suffers, payouts shrink, and the political structure collapses as citizens turn to crime over work to guarantee their 'entitlements'. The US federal debt is currently about 50 trillion dollars, when including already promised future entitlements. While Dr. Paul advocates letting the young opt out of the social security program, he has never voted to spend one penny out of someone's social security funds to provide for other government spending. As an OB/GYN, he never accepted medicare or medicaid payments; yet was still able to run a successful practice performing such work for free. The government is currently the largest payer of medical care and has been completely unable to control costs and reduce price inflation. Dr. Paul wants to transition back to free market health care, where medical payments are made by productive citizens (including charitable contributions), not through overbearing taxation. America is the most charitable people in the world because it is the most productive. Socialism and welfarism threaten our wealth and ability to provide for the truly needy. The only way we can afford to take care of those who the system has already betrayed without forcing others, such as the young, to pick up the slack, is to reduce our excessive foreign policy, which is costing nearly 1 trillion dollars a year.
[edit] 7. Dr. Paul vows to end corporate welfare
There is no excuse for giving billionaires like Ted Turner and David Rockefeller 6 digit government checks annually for not farming their land, especially when the average farmer receives less than $900 a year in subsidies. Since the late 1800's, subsidies have often been justified as promoting American business; yet they have created a focus of political favoritism over productivity in the business world. Just like the subsidized railroads, modern businesses care little about productivity and satisfying the consumer, while spending lavishly on political campaigns and lobbying efforts. When they fail in the free market, they swiftly receive even larger payments from government, stifling productive competitors. It is inexcusable for tax-payer money to be used in endorsing monopoly and forcing small companies out of business, no matter what good or service they provide. Dr. Paul advocates ending corporatism for all businesses, letting the voluntary decisions of producers and consumers determine who succeeds and who fails in the market.
[edit] 8. Dr. Paul advocates truly free trade
Free trade is not 1,000+ pages of treaties that manage international trade, such as NAFTA and CAFTA. It is not 20,000+ pages of regulation or 40,000+ pages of tax codes, which have never likely been comprehensively read by a single human being. It is the condition where individuals are free to practice business without government interference. This grants no license for a business to commit fraud, become negligent, or pollute others' land. Such crime should obviously be investigated and punished; however, our current free trade agreements, regulations, and tax codes are an affront to economic liberty, needlessly increasing costs for legitimate business owners, granting special privileges to those with government favor, and diminishing prosperity for all Americans.
[edit] 9. Dr. Paul wishes to end the monopoly on currency
When Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971, Dr. Paul saw the potential for abuse. With the Federal Reserve's newfound ability to create money out of thin air, the government would be less inclined to keep this practice in check, than to use this power to their benefit, financing otherwise not affordable spending. The total money supply doubles about every ten years, and the current dollar is worth only 3% of its original value. This creates inflation rates as high as 10-15% annually for some classes of society and industries, harming savings, while the new money is made available for corporate buy-outs, subsidies for the rich, defense contracts, and welfare programs. Dr. Paul wishes to remove sales or gains taxes from and make gold and gold-based currency legal tender alongside Federal Reserve notes, allowing productive Americans to avoid the ill-effects of a centrally managed fiat currency. This would help transition America off of an unsound monetary policy, allowing business and individuals to focus on productivity rather than predicting the Fed's every move.
[edit] 10. Dr. Paul advocates ending free services for illegal aliens
Federal mandates on state and local communities to provide schooling, health care, and police services for people who are here illegally and pay no taxes must end immediately. Sadly, many illegal aliens do not come to America to be free and pursue opportunity. They come here for free services, at the expense of the hard-working tax-payer. As long as such services are offered, illegal immigration will be popular and increasingly expensive to American citizens who must bear the burden.
[edit] Anti-War Americans
- Get out of the Iraq War Immediately
- A Consistent Opposition to all Aggressive War
- Advocates a Constitutional Declaration of War
- Advocates a Non-interventionist Foreign Policy
- Regularly denounces the military-industrial complex
- Opposes a military draft
- Does not see any threat or credible reason to attack Iran
- Speaks of our hypocrisy in the middle east
- Opposes alliances that commit the next generation to war
- Advocates the Christian Just War Doctrine
[edit] 1. Get out of the Iraq War Immediately
Ron Paul's position on the war is that it was a mistake and that the longer we stay, the worst the consequences are for us. While our American soldiers are dying, little progress is being made securing power for the American-created Iraq national government. The most successful efforts for political stability and peace have come from small militias in small villages where there is little American presence. While there were no Al Qaeda or organized terrorist groups inside Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule, such enemies now thrive in the region, vowing to attack Americans and those who support them through suicide terrorism. As the Iraqi civilian body count rises, America is continually seen more and more as an enemy, who initiated the misery that is currently occurring in Iraq. It seems that there cannot be peace in Iraq until we leave. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and anti-American radicals are growing and spreading their influence in the entire region, the war is threatening to spread into Iran or other Muslim countries, our troops are being killed, our tax dollars are disappearing, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, no stable political or economic foundations are being constructed around our presence, and (including General Patreus) no study has concluded that America is any safer because of this war.
While many advocate that leaving completely would create a bloodbath, just the opposite has appeared true: the violence has increased during our prolonged and expanding presence. The same people who predict such a bloodbath suggested we would be welcomed as liberators, it would last a few weeks, and it would cost only a couple billion dollars. There are many experts who advocate withdrawal and do not predict an escalation of violence. While there are competitive political interests amongst Iraqis, most are simple people who only want peace and see American occupation as the obstacle, not the solution, as it serves as a scapegoat for radical and frustrated Iraqis. Similarly, the Korean War ended in a stalemate. The two nations remain divided between the most militarized border in the world, with American soldiers still stationed in the south. In Vietnam, we withdrew. Today, the nation is unified, capitalist, peaceful, and friendly to us, being a great trading partner.
"We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars." Dr. Paul has legislation to repeal the President's authority to go to war, which was based upon enforcing UN resolutions and finding weapons of mass destruction. This would effectively end the war today. Additionally, Dr. Paul votes against funding it. This is distinct from the Democrats, who have continued to fund it even with majorities in both houses of Congress. They seek to use Iraq as a means to win the Presidency; however, many of the candidates wish to continue occupation, spinning it to sound different from our current police-action.
[edit] 2. A Consistent Opposition to all Aggressive War
"I opposed the war a long time before it started. The neoconservatives promoted this war many, many years before it was started. It had nothing to do with Al Qaida. There was no Al Qaida in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Just think of the weapons the Soviets had in the '60s. We did not have to go to nuclear war with them. There's no reason to go to war against these Third World nations."
Dr. Paul firmly believes that the President has the authority to deter imminent attack, such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11, without the authority of Congress. However, declaring war on a foreign enemy must be declared by congress, who are only authorized to do so when there is a credible threat to national security. Very few nations and individuals would meet these criteria. Surely, Iraq did not. In fact, many believe it has put us into more danger. General Patraeus, hand-picked to back Bush's policies, states that he doesn't know if the war has made us any safer.
Dr. Paul seeks to avoid the loss of life, waste of enormous amounts of money, and political messes that aggressive, undeclared war causes. The problems were the same in both Korea and Vietnam. Now, we recognize similar failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while bin Laden is still at large. There is little reason to attack Iran or anyone else. Similarly, there is no reason for Iran to preemptively attack anyone, especially Israel, who already has many hundreds of nuclear weapons. We avoided nuclear war with the Soviets, who had 40,000 nuclear weapons. There is little reason to fear Iran, who has 0 nuclear weapons. The focus of our foreign policy should be to defend us from attack, not make commit our troops to endless global war.
[edit] 3. Advocates a Constitutional Declaration of War
Article I Section VIII gives the Legislative Branch the powers: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"
There is no power to authorize the president to wage war at his discretion. This careless approach to war was used in Vietnam and Korea, with similar results. Clear goals are not made. Enemies are not identified. The wars turn into no-win police actions, with no end in sight. The congress is the closest part of the federal government to the people. It is the people who should decide whether or not we wage war and what the reasoning is.
[edit] 4. Advocates a Non-interventionist Foreign Policy
Trade, travel, and diplomacy with all nations, entangling alliances with none. This can hardly be called isolationism, and considering entangling alliances started two world wars, some might consider it wise. Non-intervention simply means that we don't interfere with the affairs of other nations. Whether this be taking sides in a civil war or a regional war, or attempting to secretly overthrow a communist nation, or attempting to impose international economic sanctions, these actions do little good for America. Our CIA has overthrown over 20 democracies, yet we offer the spread of democracy as a justification for war. We condemn Iran for their theocratic government, yet we overthrew their secular democracy 50 years earlier. Our military has a presence in over 2/3 of the entire world's nations, and we are seen as an aggressive empire. All of the grievances Osama bin Laden listed as motivation for 9/11 came from an interventionist foreign policy. In fact, it empowered bin Laden when he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein when he fought Iran. In this sense, not only is its moral authority questioned, but also its practicality. Even in instances where American safety is not threatened, Americans still feel the pain of intervention, as they are forced to pay for hundreds of thousands of troops spread across the world, supporting foreign economies. We lose to competitive industry in places like Germany, while we subsidize their defense. Ron Paul advocates a policy of non-intervention, stressing trade, travel, and communication with all nations and all peoples. At the same time, he wishes for a strong national defense, ready to dispel any attacks upon our shores by any group.
[edit] 5. Regularly denounces the military-industrial complex
It is no small wonder that the beneficiaries of war are the same ones calling for a perpetual 'war on terror'. Despite numerous cases of fraud and weapon systems that have no real adversary, the march for bigger and badder (and more expensive) weaponry continues. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the cold war, and global movements for nuclear non-proliferation, America is still building nuclear weapons. Despite the failure of conventional warfare in Iraq, which has increasingly become a hotbed for jihadists and terrorists, Americans are told we simply need more conventional warfare, possibly even in other Arab nations. While this might go unnoticed or simply seem odd to many Americans, anyone who knows where campaign finance or the lobby efforts are coming from is aware that this is what Eisenhower referred to as the 'military-industrial complex'. It is simply astonishing to see the number of politicians who end up in the private government contracting business. Likewise, it is astonishing to see former CEO's of government contractors become prominent cabinet members or other government officials. These two groups seem loyal to each other and to a senseless foreign policy of constant aggressive war with nearly defenseless nations, rather than the wishes of the American people. Ron Paul challenges this system, refusing campaign contributions from such sources, turning lobbyists away, and only voting for war when it clearly serves American defense, not someone's pocketbook.
[edit] 6. Opposes a military draft
[edit] 7. Consistently supports Veterans' funding
[edit] 8. Speaks of our hypocrisy in the middle east
We supposedly went to war in Iraq to spread democracy, yet we send 10 billion dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan's General Musharref, a military dictator who overthrew a democracy. We heavily support Saudi Arabia, who is an oppressive monarchy, and Egypt, who has had the same president for as long as Iraq had Hussein as president. Additionally, we overthrew Iran in 1953 with our CIA, back when it was a secular democracy. We say we want to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction, yet we support Israel, who has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty. Also, Pakistan is largely suspected of selling nuclear technology to North Korea, yet we still send them aid. We say we must support Israel or they wouldn't be able to defend themselves, yet we send three times as much aid to the Arab nations. We say we oppose terrorism, yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and trained in the United States. None were from or trained in Iraq, which has since become a breeding ground for terrorists once our occupation began. We say we stand for human rights and fair trials, yet we practice rendition and torture, despite it delivering poor intelligence, such as Al-Libi's description of a firm connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq. We say we stand to defend innocent life, yet we hear little remorse for the 1,000,000 dead civilian Iraqis, written off as casualties of war.
[edit] 9. Opposes alliances that commit the next generation to war
[edit] 10. Advocates the Christian Just War Doctrine
[edit] Constitutional Government/Individual Liberty Advocates
- A record of strictly following the Constitution
- Opposes dissolution of civil liberties and attacks on the bill of rights
- Opposes the power of undeclared war
- Advocates the separation of powers and their checks and balances
- Seeks to end the income tax and decrease government cost
- Seeks to lessen the scope of government
- Opposes both corporatist and socialist state control of economy
- Seeks to restore state sovereignty and the 10th amendment
- Seeks to end the unconstitutional war on drugs
- Is loyal to the people over the party
[edit] Strict Follower of the Constitution
Dr. Paul follows the constitution to the letter. He does not believe that the constitution should be arbitrary, and that such interpretations lead into government not following the will of the people and putting them into no-win situations. The constitution gives the method of amendment to delegate new or modify existing powers of government. Often the process is avoided because it is difficult and lengthy, yet it is required to maintain a responsible, limited government.
In congress, he opposes all legislation not constitutionally authorized. This includes funding agencies like the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy. It applies to most of the pork-barrel spending. Dr. Paul votes so often against legislation rather than for it, he has earned the nickname "Dr. No". In today's unconstitutional era, Dr. Paul is the sole voice of reason.
[edit] Opposes Dissolution of Civil Liberties and Attacks on the Bill of Rights
Dr. Paul was one of just 3 Republicans to vote against the Bush administration's cherished USA Patriot Act, which allows warrant-less wire-tapping, search-and-seizure (without even notifying the suspect), and access to personal records (financial, medical, library), among other things. This legislation not only dissolves civil rights stipulated in the bill of rights but corrupts the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.
Dr. Paul was on of just 7 Republicans to vote against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which eliminates Habeas Corpus, guaranteed by the 5th amendment. This law is designed to allow detaining "enemy combatants" indefinitely without judicial review in a military prison without access to a lawyer. Under the "war on terror" banner, this law can be applied to anyone at anytime for anything, the defining trait of a police state.
Furthermore, detainees are subject to water-boarding, sleep deprivation, starvation, and other forms of torture. This not only violates the bill of rights' guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment, but is applied to suspects who are never found guilty by a trial.
Dr. Paul is one of just 8 Republicans who voted against the Real ID Act, which would require state ID's to conform to the Federal government's specifications. One spec is to have machine-readable technology, which would be later defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Thus far, the only serious contender is RFID, which would allow a card-holder to be remotely tracked without his knowledge. Another spec is that issuing states maintain databases, which are all linked together forming a national net of sensitive personal information, subject to mis-handling and security vulnerabilities. Finally, the additional costs of compliance are left for the states to pay. Despite these privacy and cost concerns, a REAL ID Act compliant license would be required to enter any federal building, fly on a plane, and possibly even open a bank account.
Dr. Paul is strictly opposed to violating the 2nd amendment. He believes our fore-fathers never intended to secure the right to hunt, but the right to defend oneself and one's family. This includes defense from not only criminals, but a tyrannical government. History has shown consistently that an armed free society is safer than any disarmed populace under the rule of a police state. Dr. Paul has never voted for any form of gun control or regulation. Wisdom tells us that laws only effect those who follow them. They do little to curb criminal appetite for or ability to obtain firearms, while preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves from such menaces. Gun control and prohibition are unconstitutional attempts at increasing government power. The fantasy of reliance upon government to protect one's family at the drop of a hat is neither practical nor compatible with a free society.
[edit] Opposes the Power of Undeclared War
Dr. Paul has introduced legislation that would declare the Iraq War through congress, forcing representatives to vote yay or nay on whether they themselves supported such a war. The legislation was buried in committee because congress does not want responsibility for the war. This is quite apparent since the Democrats won both houses of congress but refuse to remove funding for the war. They want to make it a presidential issue, simply because they want to increase their power.
The reason the executive branch is not given the power to declare war, while the congress can is quite simple. The congress is more connected to the people, and war should not be waged without their will. Despite this, the American congress believes they can defer this power to the executive branch, isolating themselves from the effort. Hillary Clinton, for example, is "against" the war, while she voted to give the President authorization for war.
Undeclared wars rarely have the support of the people, fail to find specific goals or enemies, and continue indefinitely. Despite the no-win atmosphere of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the policy of "authorizing" war continued in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; and the consequences are similar.
[edit] Advocates maintaining the constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances between government branches
The constitution fundamentally does two things: grants the federal government power, and divides them amongst branches. The branches are designed to prevent the federal government from abusing power, by giving each checks and balances over the others.
Congress has the sole power to create legislation, yet the executive branch uses "signing statements" to form laws into what the administration wants them to be. Then, it creates executive orders which carry force of law, despite no such law coming from congress. The judiciary creates opinions and interpretations of legislation, which effectively change the law. The executive now can deny judicial review and/or access to a lawyer for suspects. It can create its own search warrants.
Dr. Paul believes such practices must end.
[edit] 5. Seeks to end the income tax and shrink government
If the year 1998's congressional budget were to be introduced next year, we would have a balanced budget without collecting a single dollar in income taxes. A federal government not dependent upon taxing labor is easily obtainable, and Dr. Paul will make the spending cuts necessary to allow Americans to keep their own money. Such immediate cuts include middle eastern wars, the departments of education and energy, corporate welfare, foreign aid, the drug war, and the CIA's non-intelligence-gathering functions. Gradually, Dr. Paul wishes to reduce medicare, medicaid, and social security by allowing the young to opt out of the programs. Also, he wants to ensure that we always resort to balanced budgeting, reducing debt obligations down the road. Eventually, this will lead to a significantly smaller federal budget, which will be affordable without income taxes.
[edit] 6. Advocates less powerful and more simple government
Regulations on businesses have
[edit] 7. Opposes both corporatist and socialist policies
[edit] 8. Seeks to re-establish state sovereignty
[edit] 9. Advocates ending the war on drugs
[edit] 10. Challenges the party system
[edit] The Christian Right
The Christian Right have been excluded from this election. Few candidates out there patriot true pro-family values.
- Is firmly Christian and proud of it
- Knows family values
- Is firmly pro-life
- Does not believe in strict separation of church and state
- Believes our rights come from our Creator, not from permission of government
- Supports the parent, not the state
- Helps the needy
- Always votes for veterans
- Has never slashed social security benefits
- Supports the Christian Doctrine of Just War
[edit] Proud Christian
Dr. Paul has always been a proud Christian conservative, placing emphasis on family and moral values.
[edit] Knows Family Values
Dr. Paul
[edit] Anti-Establishment
This group is probably the least wise to target. If targeted at all, it might be best left on the internet. While there are significant points to be made in this area, normal folk will write it off as whiny theoretical drivel...because it's not on the news. We should only pull this out when we know it'll be effective.
Why is Ron Paul so popular? Because freedom is popular!
[edit] Foreign Policy
- against the current Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
- against Neo-Conservatives' world domination philosophy
- against Democrats' police-the-world philisophy
- against posturing our troops in over 130+ nations throughout the world
- against using the CIA to overthrow foreign governments, including 20+ democracies, especially for economic purposes (like oil or bananas)
- against supporting allies of convenience, like the Iranian Shah, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden
[edit] Civil Rights
- against all unconstitutional government
- against the idea that government grants rights, rather than exists to protect them
- against any war not properly declared by congress
- against the racist, costly, ineffective, and unjust drug war
- against the fascist war on terror, eroding our civil rights
- against sedition, torture, unwarranted invasions of privacy, violations of due process, and denial of judicial review
- against seizure of property without trial
- against a National ID, which would be used to track American citizens
- against the power of political parties over the people
- against gun control, which limits law-abiding Americans' defense, and opens the door for a tyrannical state
- against secret vote counting and electronic voting machines known to be purposefully used to fix elections
[edit] Globalism and Economics
- against the philosophy of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Tri-Lateral Commission, elitist clubs promoting one world government/new world order
- against current borderless nature of America
- against the income tax and IRS and wants to replace it with nothing, not new and different taxes
- against "free trade agreements", that merely promote corporate-favored managed trade
- for true free trade and true capitalism
- against big-government corporatist/socialist/communist America
- against the Federal Reserve Bank, and its fiat money
- against no-bid contracts and the military-industrial complex
- against the "inflation tax," which benefits Wall Street over Main Street
- against corporate welfare, pork-barrel spending or other benefits to the politically connected at the average American's expense
