FRED
Ryman
  
FRED
Ryman​​
​​   for U.S. Senate


Solutions! 

Solutions?  Now, there's a concept
not often heard from any political
campaign.  With everything from
illeagal immigration to abortion to
health care to trade to tax reform,
we hear "more of the same" or
less of the same", but always...
                                              the same.
 
FRED brings actual solutions to the table...new, sound ideas that move us toward solutions for many of the problems that frustrate and aggrivate Americans.

FRED Ryman's Senate campaign is "SOLUTIONS-ORIENTED".
 
It is a "political tactic" when politicians say, "I have a plan..." but then you never really hear any details on their plan.  Politicians use this strategy because, once their plan is public, it can be torn down.  Fred is not a politician; he is a problem solver who thinks outside the box, because the best solution is sometimes a counter-intuitive one.  We have a window of opportunity right now to re-direct our nation!  ...to point our nation in a better direction!  ...to create a Grand New Party!

 
FRED's solutions take a new, fresh look at the root causes of several issues, because we have to get beyond just treating the surface symptoms.  We will look at solutions to each of the following issues:
Everybody has a tax plan!  The Flat Tax, the Fair tax, the 9-9-9 tax, more brackets, fewer brackets, higher taxes, lower taxes…and everybody thinks their plan is the best.  I favor a repeal of the 16th Amendment coupled with a Decentralized Tax Plan, which is, bar none, “the best tax plan you’ve never heard” of because it is not a single, one-size-fits-all tax plan.
 
My Decentralized Tax Plan would prohibit all current direct taxing of people, products, or services by the federal government (such as income tax, excise tax, death tax) or any other direct taxation considered in the future (such as a national sales or property tax).  This freedom from federal taxation would apply to every U.S. citizen and every corporation or company that is wholly-owned by U.S. citizens and it would be codified through the repeal of the 16th Amendment.  (To encourage lawful pursuit of naturalization, I would favor allowing an income tax on non-citizens and on corporations partly or wholly-owned by non-citizens.)
 
Federal revenues would, instead, be gathered through a per capita tax upon the states.  Each state, then, would decide for itself the best manner of taxing its own people and/or companies to meet their federal obligation.  To ensure timely payments, states being “in default” would lose voting priviledges at the federal level (in the House and the Senate) until their tax payments were brought current, at which point their voting rights would be restored.  Quorums and majorities would be adjusted during these periods accordingly as stipulated in the Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment.
 
The advantages of such a plan are numerous:
   - State tax plans would remain under the control of a more-local,
         more-answerable state government.
   - the states would be able to adapt their tax plans to the unique
        characteristics of their state.  (For example, Hawaii might tax

        its tourism industry more heavily; New York might raise its
        income taxes; California might tax property more; Florida
        might hike inheritance taxes; other states might increase

        sales taxes.  The point is that each state could decide how to
        best raise revenue to meet their federal obligation.)
   - citizens and companies would be able to vote with their feet,
        relocating to states where the tax plans are more "fair" for
        them.
   -  businesses would not have to move overseas to shop for the
        best tax plan, preserving American jobs, bringing others

        home.
   - states which proved incapable of managing their own state
        revenues and meeting their federal obligations would lose

        the power to dictate fiscal policy to the rest of us from D.C.
   - the IRS could no longer be used by Federal Administrations as a
        tool of tyranny, squelching the voices of free citizens through
        the threat of financial ruin, frivolous prosecution, or choosing
        to delay tax exempt status for conservative groups.
   - disputes over tax burdens would be addressed between federal
        and state entities, instead of oppressed, ill-equipped citizens.
   - over-counting of population (including illegal immigrants, for
         example) would result in higher tax burdens but under-
         counting would result in a loss of representatives in the
         U.S. House, creating a disincentive for either.
 
Several natural and important tensions would also be preserved:
   - states could not radically raise taxes on businesses or those
        businesses would relocate to other states, taking jobs with
        them.
   - states could not radically raise taxes on the labor force or those
        workers would seek employment in other states, forcing the
        original employers to raise worker pay to maintain staffing.
   - states could not overspend or they would have to raise taxes
        which could cause a mass exodus of businesses and workers.
   - and yet, states could not cut necessary spending or a negative
        impact on quality of life would drive out those same workers
        and/or businesses.


Thus, the most important tension created would be a coercive demand for fiscal responsibility at the state levels, which those states would likewise demand from the federal government to lighten their load.  This “voice” for the States’ interests is precisely the role of the U.S. Senator.
 
Overall, this Decentralized Tax Plan should produce lower taxes, smaller federal government, and would certainly preserve American jobs by allowing our industries to find lower taxes WITHIN the United States.
FRED's
"Decentralized"
Tax Plan
The best tax plan you've never heard about.
Every Big Business special interest and every Democrat who claims that they want immigration reform is a flat-out liar.  Democrats have always advocated for heavy immigration (legal or otherwise) because they see immigrants with indifference toward our blended culture and our Constitutional principles as their future voting base. Politicos in the pockets of big business (which used to be primarily Republican but not any more), continue to cater to the desire of big businesses for cheap, illegal labor in order to suppress all salaries.  The continuation of the flow of illegal immigrants works in favor of both of those objectives.  And yet…
 
The openness of our borders poses a clear and present danger to the security of our nation and the two parties who allow it to continue are, plainly, subversive of the Constitution they swore to defend.  We have no idea who might be crossing our border and the sheer numbers of that migration makes detection of those with hostile motivations all the more difficult.
 
The American people are fed up with politicians who speak of the need for "comprehensive immigration reform", because those politicians seem perfectly willing to create paths toward citizenship for those who have already proven themselves willing to cheat the system and ignore our immigration laws.  And yet, those same politicians never, ever, EVER secure the border.  The foolishness of it all is almost cartoonish, like a man continuing to bail out his little fishing boat with his little bucket without first plugging the geyser that just continues to flood the boat.  And yet again…
 
We are NOT going to build a big, beautiful wall!   Building a wall is something a politician would do to make it LOOK as though he were doing something when he's really just wasting our money.  Let’s put this notion of a wall (or a fence) to the test through a simple exercise in logic…
 
Question:  How far are you willing to go in order to protect your wall?  More to the point...  If someone is trying to cut through, climb over, or dig under your wall, are you willing to shoot that invader?
 
If YOUR answer is, “Yes!  Shoot him…” then why have the wall?  Bullets are cheaper.  Just put boots on the ground, armed with technology and the authorization to defend our border, and our border will be protected.  However...
 
If YOUR answer is, “No, that’s inhumane…” then, again, what is the point in building a wall?  It would be full of holes, covered with ladders, and undermined with tunnels in short order.  Without the authorization to defend a wall, there is also no authorization to defend the border, and vice versa.  Either way, the wall becomes irrelevant.
 
Building a wall is not even a part of the answer.  The real solution...? We must turn off the magnets…those things that continue to draw immigrants across the border, illegally.  We must cut off the social programs, the financial aid, and the public education at tax-payer expense that gives aid and comfort to those who are not even supposed to be here.  We must correct the notion that children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally bestows instant citizenship.

But more importantly, we must cut off the jobs and housing that encourages and enables those who have already broken our laws and jumped in line ahead of those who ARE law-abiding.  And MOST of all, we must cut off even the hope that a path to citizenship might eventually be obtained by their illegal entry if they stay here long enough.
 
We are NOT against immigration, but the privilege to immigrate is ours to give to those we deem worthy.  It is not some right that law-breakers can be allowed to grab away from us.  Similarly, to allow a flood of immigrants from Central America any path to legal status or citizenship is, on its face, discriminatory against those who might wish to immigrate from Asia or Africa or elsewhere.
 
Working Toward a Solution:
 
In battling the illegal drug industry, we implemented a drug kingpin law (the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute) which allowed for the confiscation of the property of those who had profited through their illegal activity.  Similarly, those businesses which increase their profits by breaking immigration laws need a taste of the same justice…a forfeiture of their assets.  Any business which carelessly or knowingly hires (or continues to employ) an illegal immigrant (as well as any landlord who rents or continues to rent to an illegal immigrant due to a lack of due diligence, such as using e-verify) should suffer crippling fines on their first offense, but should suffer a total forfeiture of their related assets on any subsequent offense as a de facto corporate death sentence for the facility/property involved in the illegal activity.
 
A landlord who rents to illegal immigrants more than once would lose their rental property, whether it be a small shack in the woods or an apartment building in a sanctuary city.  A factory or plant that hires illegal aliens a second time would have their entire plant seized.  In all such cases, these assets would, then, be auctioned publically, with assets going into a debt-servicing account, which could transition into funding infrastructure needs if our national debt were ever paid off.  This measure would penalize the true law-breakers, those who profit from illegal immigration and exploit the illegal immigrants, cynically preying upon their hopes, creating a costly, dangerous border security issue for all of us.
 
Once this plan has been implemented, there will be no need to deport the reported 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here.  If they can't find jobs, and they can't find housing, they will find their own way out of our country.  They will leave on their own to follow the jobs elsewhere or leave so they could apply to return legally.  The issue of sanctuary cities would be rendered mute, because the assets of those hiring or harboring illegal immigrants would be seized.  The issue of “anchor babies” would become a mute point as well because, when parents leave voluntarily, most of them would choose to keep their family together when they leave.
 
Like others, I do also contend that it is constitutionally-questionable as to whether those born to parents here illegally are "citizens".  I would fight for a constitutional decision or amendment clarifying the illegitimacy of the notion of birthright in such cases.
 
Working Toward a More-Ideal Future:
 
Having said all this, the simple departure of illegal immigrants would be a wasted opportunity.  We should not just send these immigrants “away”.  We should, instead, send them "forth" as ambassadors for the American dream!  We should offer immigrants who are willing to leave a short training program that might equip them to make a difference back in their home countries.  By preparing them to become successful in business and political activism in their home country, we could help them transform their own homelands into more free and prosperous countries, which would also tend to stem the tide of immigration at its source.
 
When these plans have been completely implemented then, and only then, we can talk about creating a better process for allowing migrant workers to come into the United States, as our own unemployment rates allow.  Under no circumstances, however, should there be any path to citizenship other than their return to their home country and the normal immigration and citizenship process.  No man, woman, or child can be allowed to jump in line just because they made it across the border ahead of others who are abiding by the rules.  To reward lawlessness with any hope of future citizenship simply creates yet another magnet, drawing greater multitudes across the border.
 
We shall be secure in our borders or we shall be no more…  Our border shall be secured through a wall of technology and boots on the ground and a willingness to use deadly force when necessary against those who will no longer be able to claim that they are "only seeking a better life", because that life would no longer be available to those who attempt to come here in violation of our sovereignty.
Illegal Immigration and Immigration Reform
The best immigration
   plan you've never
             about...
I support the repeal of the 17th Amendment which allowed U.S. Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by the State legislature.
 
I remember thinking, when I was a history student in Junior High, that direct election was, surely, a more democratic and more representative manner of choosing a Senator...and it is.  The problem is that our founding fathers had intended the Senate to be a voice for the State, itself...not just another voice for the people.  States have interests that extend beyond what most individual voters might concern themselves with.
 
The duty of U.S. Senators, as much as anything, is to be a check on the power of the federal government.  Their job is to say "No" when the federal government decides to overstep and usurp the rights which are reserved to the states.
 
I, personally, first realized the federal government's over-reach back in the 1970's during the days of the gasoline shortages and the 55 mile per hour "national" speed limit, imposed upon us by Washington.  Did the feds have any right whatsoever to impose a national speed limit?  No...and even they knew it.  That fact is proven by the manner in which they approached this small step toward tyranny.
 
Instead of just passing a law directly as they would do if they had the authority, they instead told states that their state would not receive any highway funding unless that state passed a 55mph speed limit.  So, by coercion, 55mph became the "50 state" (i.e. national) speed limit.
 
Having succeeded in this tactic, the federal government now employs that same "denial of funds" tactic with virtually all matters which should, constitutionally, fall under States' Rights...and there is no longer a body of representatives in Washington that is charged with the duty of speaking for the states.
 
We see this especially with education, an issue that is clearly reserved to state control.  Every time someone at the federal level claims they are "pro-education" and promise money to fund education, they are flat out lying!  That "money" STARTED OUT in the local economy.  They took it by force and now offer only a portion of it back to us...with strings attached that, again, requires that we accept their federal tyranny on issues like Common Core and school restroom policies.
 
The effect upon a state is that a refusal to "play along" drains the economy of that state.  The Feds drain money out of the state through tax revenues which are not returned in funds or services.  When the Feds then refuse to release even a portion of that money back into the state unless the state agrees to the tyranny of the Feds, they are being blatantly unconstitutional, although no one currently serving in Washington seems to understand or care that they, themselves, are thereby being subversives of the Constitution they swore to defend.
 
Art.1, §8, ¶1 of the Constitution says:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
and...
Art.1, §9, ¶6 says:  "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
 
In our founding fathers view, the ports of the early nation were the economic heartbeat of the states.  To favor or penalize one port over another would put the federal government in the position to be an existential threat to the economy of that state.  The clear intent of our Constitution was to prevent the federal government from being able to favor one state while strangling another state into submission...which is precisely the intent of a denial of funds strategy.

The point of these 2 paragraphs, especially when taken together, is to say that the federal government cannot pick winners or losers between the states.  The federal government cannot show any favoritism (neither through taxation nor regulation nor grants nor highway funding nor education funding nor through any other regulation of Commerce or Revenue) toward any state(s) at the expense of another.  The federal government cannot strip the economy of one state (or several states) through what amounts to unequal taxation to fund the failing leadership of another.
 
If Senators were answerable only to their states’ governments, then they would fight for their states’ interests rather than pander to the electorate only to be bought by campaign contributions and special interests.  That is the role of Representatives.  (*sarcasm*)
States' Rights
and the 17th
Amendment
Who speaks for our
        State's interests?  Who is answerable
        to our State
        Congress?
Of all the solutions addressed, herein, this is the one solution that must remain somewhat hidden, because it would be utter foolishness to announce a strategy and expect the enemy to simply allow it to proceed as planned.  So, in this instance, I must break my own rule of "providing solutions" and say, "I have a plan.  It is a sound military plan that will effectually end the ability of ISIS to function in fairly short order."
 
I will, however, take the opportunity to make a point...or two.  We will not "solve" the problems of the Middle East...ever.  I proclaim this from a historical perspective and from an informed faith.  We must stand with allies and stand against aggressors, but it is not our place to meddle in the internal politics of other sovereign nations.  And...we have serious issues even here at home...
 
There are, conservatively, about 6 million Muslims living in the United States.  We are constantly reminded by the media that most of them are peaceful; they always show a few who feel like victims of American hatred.  So, first of all... I bear no ill will, nor paranoia, concerning any man of any race or religion.  However...
 
In a Pew poll positively couched by an MSNBC story in 2015, belittling Trump's proposed temporary "ban" on immigration from several nations tied to terrorism, only American Muslims were surveyed.  Of those in the survey, 81% said that suicide bombings were not acceptable; about that same percentage denounced the Militant Islamic Jihadist movement Al Qaeda.
 
That sounds like a very positive sign until you consider that 19% of these fellow Americans were unwilling to denounce Jihadists and suicide bombings.  Doing the math, this comes to over one million American Muslims who are at least somewhat "open" to the idea of using barbaric methods to attack innocent fellow Americans, just like those in San Bernadino, CA.
 
I do not bring this point up to create fear among non-Muslims.  I bring this up in order to address Muslims in Missouri and across this county:  You, as an American, have an obligation to your fellow citizens.  If you are sincere in your faith and these Jihadists have, indeed, twisted your faith as we are so often told, then you must rid your faith of them...and you must help our country rid itself of their threat.  This is YOUR obligation above all ours.
 
To those tempted to act on behalf of such thugs:  It is the cry of the Jihadist, "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great!)  Really?!!  If your God were, indeed, great, he would not need your help!  He would not have to force people to "love" or serve him at the barrel of a gun.  He would not have to force people to follow his path under threat of death.  He would not condone the rape of women.  And... He would not send armed cowards to slaughter unarmed civilians.  He would, instead, give a handful of unarmed warriors a glorious victory over a mighty army; THAT would prove the "greatness" of a god.  No "great god" would force himself upon anyone, because that very tactic would suggest to all that he is "not so great" and most would never love him of their own free will.
 
To those of my own Christian faith, I would offer only this:  Our God does not need help either.  Our role in this life is that of our Savior, to love, to guide, to reprove, to forgive, and to live our faith in faithfulness.  If condemnation must come for any man, it should come at the hands of God.
Terrorism
and Militant
Islamic Jihad
Adapting to a different kind of warfare...
Some people misunderstand the nature of rights.  A "right" is not granted to us by our laws, or Constitution, or Bill of Rights.  A right is granted to us by our Creator.  The founding fathers saw fit to enumerate many of these rights in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that we, the people, understood them to be rights that could not be taken away by any tyrant, foreign or domestic.
 
Let me be abundantly clear…  The 2nd Amendment reiterates the individual's right to arm himself as a God-given right that helps us secure all other rights against the threat of tyranny at home and abroad.  The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, nor sport.  Federalist Paper #46 stressed the logic that a fully-armed militia (which, in our founding fathers’ eyes, includes EVERY able-bodied man of age) would be an overwhelming force against any national army, including our own.  In other words, an armed public capable of defeating even our own army would ensure our freedom.
 
While it might seem “reasonable” to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, or those on a no-fly or terrorist watch list, or those who might fit some other suspicion of being potentially dangerous, no basic right can or should be infringed without due process.  For example, one can be put on a no-fly list by complete accident.  One can be put on a terrorist watch list with no due process whatever.  And what of "mental illness"...?
 
There was actually a minor movement back in the 80’s and 90’s by atheists to label ALL religious folks as mentally ill.  “All believers of all faiths are crazy!”  How short the path to such a view could be, given the barbaric fervor of militant Islam!  That attitude could, then, be turned into a prohibition upon all men of faith to bear arms due to this “mental illness”.  Think it could never happen?  Trusting in the good nature of politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint is the ultimate foolishness.
 
I could support instant background checks to ensure guns are not sold to felons.  Those checks, however, must be against lists which have resulted from some action of due process against the would-be gun owner, not against some arbitrary list from some unelected bureaucrat.
 
The fact is that murders occur because of the sinfulness of mankind, not because of the weapon of choice.  There was violence and murder long before there were guns.  Guns make the taking of life easier, but also make the defending of life easier.  Those who blame guns for gun violence instead the holder of that gun prove themselves utterly foolish and they reveal their own ignorance of the very nature of mankind, both the criminal AND the tyrant who prospers when the oppressed are disarmed.
 
If, however, we understand that there is an “end game” for those who wish to control us, then we must take a long view and fight against every incremental infringement of our right to bear arms.  If we allow ourselves to gradually lose an ability to defend ourselves by just one small “reasonable” step at a time, then we will eventually become that proverbial boiled frog.
 
Gun ownership is a God-given "right" because it is akin to the right of a person to defend himself, whether against individuals or against governments who mean him harm.  Would slavery have existed in a world where every African owned a gun and knew how to use it?  Would slavery have continued in a nation where every slave owned a gun?
 
Many of the quotes that people attribute to groups like the NRA, such as "When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals will own guns...", are actually paraphrases of comments made by our founding fathers...in this case, a citation from Cesare Beccaria that Thomas Jefferson included in his own writings.
 
Let's be frank and put an end to the farce...  If any President or Congressman actually believes that a gun-free zone provides the safest possible environment, then I would invite them to remove guns from every guard, and every Secret Service agent in or near the White House.  The D.C. capital police have guns; just wait on them to arrive if you have some emergency.  They can let their own homes and offices stand unprotected from sudden attack or intrusion.  The foolishness of gun control advocates should become almost-instantly self-evident.  Our founding fathers understood:  An armed public is a safer public, safer from the aggressions of overly-ambitious men from without and within.
Gun Control
and the 2nd
Amendment
Why is gun ownership considered a God-given "right"?
We are caretakers of a wondrous planet, full of diverse life and beauty.  We must continue to demand that both, industry and individuals assume responsibility (both, financially & criminally) for harm they cause to various ecosystems.  Having said this, those holding to the so-called "near-consensus opinion" regarding the long-term effects of man-made global warming have crossed the line of intellectual honesty into the territory of international conspiracy and political correctness.
 
As Christmas of 2015 approached, Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders tied the unusually warm weather pattern on the East coast to global warming.  Never mind that it was, on that same day, snowing in El Paso on the Texas-Mexican border.  Tying a temporary, localized weather pattern caused largely by the naturally-recurring el niño cycle to global warming rivals the ignorance shown by U.S. Congressman Hank Johnson who expressed fears during a congressional committee meeting that the island of Guam might "capsize" due to overpopulation.  (In fairness, after reviewing the YouTube video , the Congressman did appear to be somehow "impaired" at the time.)
 
While the media and various politicians attempt to stifle any dissenting discussion of climate change and would have us believe that the matter is a proven fact within the scientific community, their dogmatism does not make it so.  Senator Cruz recently dismantled the Sierra Club President in Senate hearings on this question of simply "accepting concensus" vs. "discussing facts" because the scientific facts do not back up this highly political "consensus". ( see YouTube video  of that testimony)

I recently heard a climatologist flat out lie about this fact on a morning news program, implying that the oft-mentioned 97% consensus was some survey of only climate experts.  Non-sense!  The 97% number is not a survey of climate scientists at all.  The 97% figure is from an online survey of 10,000 scientists to which only 3,000-4.000 responded, which was then further reduced by the surveyer to a selected 79 responses.  This entire "survey" process (and thus the results) have been completely discredited as bogus and, yet, the results have taken on a politically-correct life of their own.

You may also hear about "peer-reviewed" published articles which is a way of saying that these articles were, themselves, censored by those who insist on a "man-made global warming" theme (i.e. the number is entirely a politically-correct deception).  In the world of science and academia, if you hope to receive grants (which is often the source of your paycheck), then you are wise to publish in agreement with the politically-correct conclusions.

On the contrary, many scientists whose expertise does lie in the field of climatology are much more skeptical of the speed, cause, and impact of anthropogenic climate change.  For example…
 
Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  Her areas of expertise include polar climates, air-sea interactions, atmospheric modeling, hurricanes, remote sensing, and using unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.  She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.  She greatly disputes predicted speeds of temperature rise as well as the ability of mankind to have any significant impact upon that speed, positively or negatively.  She also stated plainly that “Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.”  [Wikipedia]
 
The fact is, as stated above, we live on a wondrous planet…a planet that self-regulates its temperature very effectively, as is evidenced by the fact that the earth has undergone a multitude of significant climate variations through the millennia caused, in some cases, by cataclismic terrestrial events and, yet, it has continually self-corrected.  The planet has been through ice ages and warm-ups and millions of smaller changes through the ages.
 
Climate change advocates are quick to point out some of the more immediate impacts of global warming – the melting of the ice caps and mountain glaciers, the warming of the oceans, the rise in sea level.  What these alarmists fail to mention is the subsequent results of those changes.  For example, the rise in sea level covers a greater percentage of the earth’s surface which has a cooling effect on the atmosphere.  A rise in global temperature also raises the vapor pressure, allowing greater evaporation, which also has a cooling effect.  The greater evaporation creates greater cloud cover which again has a cooling effect.
 
Storms might increase and while an increase in storms might have a negative impact on man-made structures, atmospheric churning also promotes greater cooling at the surface by drawing down cold air from the upper atmosphere and sending warm air into the upper atmosphere where it radiates its heat out into space.  The end result of all of these effects is that a cooling cycle would again cause ice caps and glaciers to grow until equilibrium is again attained.
 
The dark truth, here, is that there is an ulterior motive behind this fear mongering.  There are those who believe in global citizenry and seek a one-world government.  The United Nations' Agenda 21 is but one documented endeavor in that direction; the Paris Accord is another.  The claim of man-made global climate change has become their weapon of choice in establishing choking regulatory controls and bringing decline to the powerful economy of the United States.  Theirs is a strategy of humbling America to the point that it would accept its "equal status" to every other nation in this global community, whether it be China or Haiti.  If one accepts just one truth about human nature – that men will always seek power over other men – then wise leadership will look beyond the scientific issues which are, indeed, refuted by reputable scientists in the field of climatology.  One should consider the political schemes of those who might seek power over us.
 
I do not suggest that we should tolerate any intentional abuse of our environment, especially chemical contamination which is a far greater danger, but only that fears over climate change is a weapon of those who seek to subvert the U.S. government and bring it under obligations to or control of other governing bodies, such as the U.N.  It is no coincidence that this is the same crowd who wishes to disarm the American public…this is the same crowd who wishes to control the educational content at the federal level for the indoctrination of the next generation of citizens…this is the same crowd who censors or ridicules those who dare offer a dissenting view…  If one does not understand the political end game behind hyped environmental concerns, a follower could easily think they are saving the world when they are, in truth, only condemning their own nation.
 
When other developed nations and the developing world meet the standards that we already exceed as regards climate change and environmental responsibility, then and ONLY THEN we can move forward in "leading" further change, but we WILL NOT cripple the United States’ economy under the deception that our unilateral sacrifice will save the world, despite the continuing abuses of other nations.
Environmental Issues and Global Warming
The Greater Danger
   of the Political
    Environment!
I am fairly certain that most Missouri adults understand the difference between wants and needs...and when there's not enough money to go around, we meet our needs and lay aside our wants for a time.  The federal government doesn't operate by that same common sense.
 
We have two possibilities...  Either our leaders are so foolish that they cannot balance our national wants and needs against our revenue ...or... they are willfully enslaving America economically.
 
Good ol' Missouri common sense says... Fund what is necessary to keep our government operating.  Lay aside other funding issues until we can afford them or until we have a consensus about what is Constitutional and necessary at the federal level.  Instead, our current Congress offers  us "all or nothing" budgets, pointing fingers of blame across the aisle when the government shuts down.  This is a subversive scare tactic which offers false choices. Instead of ZERO-based budgeting, Congress uses continuing funding and false language.  A "cut" is not a cut at all, but only a lessening of the increase.

I support a 2-step allocation process:  a bare-boned, minimal maintenance budget designed to keep the government operational, followed by a zero-based budget process for discretional spending.   A ZERO-based budget begins at $0 and insists that ANY spending must be justified...every year...or it ends.  But Washington rightly judges that zero-based budgeting is "too hard".  It IS hard, and it SHOULD BE hard to justify taking hard-earned money out of the pockets of the American tax-payer.
 
"Well, that's not the way Washington works..."  Seriously?!!  You think Washington...works?  Here is my pledge to you... If elected:
- I will vote "NO" for every budget that spends more than the
       projected revenue!  No more deficit spending.
- I will vote "NO" on every bill that includes socialized medicine
       with the exception of the care of veterans.
- I will vote "NO" on every budget that includes grants to private
       individuals or organizations without equitable goods or
       services rendered.
- I will vote "NO" on every bill that includes funding to Planned
       Parenthood or other organizations that perform or promote
       abortions.
- I will vote "NO" on every budget that includes research grants,
       unless those recipients forfeit the rights of patent.
No patent should ever be granted to any person or company when the public is already funding that research.  You can obtain public funding or you can receive patents; you should never receive both.  If we fund it, we should own it.
 
A sign will hang on my door for all special interest lobbyists to see as they enter, "The public feeding trough is hereby closed!"  Why? Because the notion that the federal government "funds" ANYthing is a lie.  The federal government HAS NO money; that is YOUR money and mine.
The National Debt and Government Spending
The impossibly
difficult ZERO-Based
Budget...?  Yes!
because...
it SHOULD be
impossibly difficult
to spend
YOUR money!
"Make America Great Again!"  There's a slogan that any America should be able to get behind.  But you can't make America great again unless you understand what made America great in the first place.  The Constitution of the United States is the one thing that distinguishes the U.S. from every other nation on the planet.  That precious document is the one thing that makes us "exceptional".
 
I fully support the ideal and the work of making America shine as a beacon of hope and freedom for the world to see, but America has lost her way.  We have drifted from the moorings of our founding documents and, more importantly, our founding principles.  Just as the Bible serves as an anchor for a Christian faith, so also the Constitution serves to steady our course and protect us from the ambitions of a federal government run amuk.
 
Slavery is surely the greatest stain upon our American heritage.  The very notion of one man owning another in the nation that has held itself out as that beacon of freedom, a singular shining light upon the face of the earth, proclaiming God-given rights and an unquenchable human spirit... The compromise by our founding fathers to allow for slavery in order to get our Constitution ratified by all 13 colonies was a detestable choice.  It was political pragmatism at work, but it was the wrong compromise.  If necessary for ratification of our Constitution, perhaps it would have been the wiser compromise to begin as a nation of 8 free states rather than to yield to even temporary allowances for slavery.
 
In our generation, we can and should extend to ALL Americans the same freedoms that our founding fathers imagined.  Thankfully, slavery is but a vanquished embarrassment in our distant past…or is it? There's an ancient proverb that states:  "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7)
 
The "best" slaves are the slaves that don’t even realize they are slaves.  With each passing hour, we all become more and more enslaved...enslaved to our $20 Trillion national debt, oppressed by regulations run amuck, under threat of becoming completely socialistic...  In a way, recent elections have been about slavery... economic slavery...  
 
We have lost our way as a free nation.  Our children have never really known true freedom.  The state dictates what it believes is good parenting.  The feds try to set our schools' curriculum.  In some communities, a child cannot legally even open a lemonaid stand on their front sidewalk without licenses and permits.
 
Too often, Democrats and Republicans are fighting tooth and nail, but they fight for their team, their party, not for our freedom.  Even our own Republican leadership in Congress has lost its way.  One need only look at the fight over health care to realize that they are not giving us what we demand.  Rather, they are replacing socialized medicine with socialized medicine, then taking credit (i.e. blame) for a system that will never succeed.
 
Never mind that a socialized national health care system creates a whole new breed of slaves called doctors...  What else can you call it when the government demands, “You WILL provide services, and we will pay you what little we chose to pay you, if we so chose.”
 
Ronald Reagan warned us about socialized medecine and where it leads our nation as far back as 1961.  His speech on “socialized medicine” (available on YouTube) more than 50 years ago predicted exactly where we are now, and where it would go from here.  And...we nearly had a Presidential nominee who openly claims loyalty to the socialism that would make slaves of us all where the state would set your salary based on the value of your work as assessed by a bureaucrat, just as they do with doctors now.
 
America is at the edge…  NOW is the time to say “NO MORE”.  NOW is the time to RISE UP against those, like Claire McCaskill, whose loyalty lies with the East Coast / West Coast liberals.  NOW is the time for an electoral revolution!  NOW is the time to say "NEVER AGAIN will I vote for socialism!  Never again will I vote for those who promote socialism."  Socialism has never been sustainable or successful anywhere.
       Vote for freedom!
                 Vote FOR FRED!
National Identity ...and...
Subversion
From Within
Just when you thought slavery was a thing of the past.
This is an issue that has gone largely unnoticed by the public, but it may be one of the most important issues of our generation.  This issue centers around a case that the Supreme Court flatly got wrong…and not that long ago...in the Kelo -vs- City of New London case.
 
Eminent Domain allows the government to forcibly purchase property at a fair market value in order to use it for some "public use" such as a post office, courthouse, or roadway (see 5th Amendment).  In the above case, the words "public benefit" were substituted by the Supreme Court for "public use" and they allowed private property to be siezed because another entity had "plans" for the property that would improve the local tax base.  In other words, the Supreme Court did not "interpret" but rather it altered and subverted the Constitution, an act for which each justice ruling in favor should have been immediately impeached because they changed the Constitution and their decision completely nullifies the very notion of private property.
 
Eminent domain can NEVER justify taking private property from one individual or company and giving it to another individual or company just because of some public benefit to the tax base that might occur, otherwise there is no such thing as private property.  For example, almost ANY proposed use of land would provide an increase to the local tax base over farming that land; thus, the Supreme Court altered the Constitution in a way the basically killed the American farm.  Any farm land, no matter how long held by a family could be seized in order to build virtually any improvement for some other individual's private gain.  This is flatly wrong...
 
If a private entity has designs on someone else's property, tough!  It belongs to the rightful owner and should never change hands unless the new "would-be" owners can persuade the owner to part with it.  That is the whole idea of "PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP".  The clause "public use" also demands that any private property that is taken from its rightful owner should and MUST remain in the ownership and use of the governmental entity which took possession of that property (hence the term "public"); otherwise, the property should and must be returned to the original owner, with or without improvements.
 
One current example is the proposed Keystone Pipeline (phase IV) cutting through the heart of America.  I support the idea of such a pipeline in many ways, but...this pipeline is owned by a Canadian company (TransCanada Corp.).  If this pipeline is to be held and maintained by private owners who will profit by its use (and a foreign company, at that), then Eminent Domain CANNOT be used  to forcibly take land away from the rightful owners of that land.  Period!  That same precedent could justify arbitrarily siezing all property in Northern California and selling it to China to pay off our national debt.  Surely, that also would "benefit" the public...but it would harm those who own "private property" in California.
 
Eminent Domain cannot justify taking private property so that another group can build a football stadium for their personal profit.  Eminent Domain cannot justify taking private property so that an oil company can build a pipeline for their company’s profit.  Eminent Domain cannot justify taking private property so that another group can build a shopping mall for their group’s profit even if it does increase the tax base.  If this subversive decision stands, then we have just killed the American farm... because almost any other use of any farm land would increase the tax base.
 
It doesn't matter one bit that some other use of that property might improve the tax base.  It doesn't matter that the owner is stubborn and is holding up someone else's idea of "progress".  Private Property rights are all about an owner being secure in his possession.  Eminent Domain was intended ONLY to allow government entities to build PUBLIC buildings, and PUBLIC roads, and PUBLIC parks, etc. that would benefit all and profit no one.  If Eminent Domain can be used to take away property from one individual or group so that it can be given to some other individual or group for them to use for their own profit, then there no longer remains any such thing as private property.

 
Indeed, in the aforementioned Kelo case, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia judged correctly that allowing this abuse of Eminent Domain blurs the line between public and private property...a subtle way of saying that there is no longer any such thing as "private" property.  Equipped with this precedent, those who would seek to implement Agenda 21 could proceed.
 
Congress must act to clarify this point for the Supreme Court.
Private
Property
Rights
the battle for
the American
farm and the
subversion
of our
Constitution.
Donald Trump is at least partly right on the issue of our trade imbalance:  TPP would have been yet another bad deal for the American worker.  Our leaders have done a terrible job of negotiating trade deals, but the "why" may be the real problem.
 
The Democrats' "global citizen" world-view hamstrings their ability (or their desire) to negotiate in good faith on behalf of American workers.  There are those even in the Republican party who work for big business special interests which causes them to ignore the harm to American workers.  (Yes, there are those in both parties whose primary interests do not rest with the common American citizens' best interests.)
 
Strict Free Trade advocates use words like protectionist and isolationist.  They fear-monger about starting trade wars if we were to raise "protectionistic" tariffs.  First of all, let's lay that notion to rest.  No foreign nation could "win" in a trade war against us, and most would never even follow through with such a threat because they need access to our markets far more than we need access to theirs.  Those who believe that free trade is the most mutually-beneficial policy are GIVING away our strength and our greatest negotiating tool, access to the American markets.  That access is, itself, an exceedingly valuable commodity.  Why would anyone in his right mind think that we should just "give it away"?
 
Also... Free trade is not necessarily fair trade because the playing field between U.S. and foreign labor is not level to begin with.  Some nations offer. essentially, "slave labor" conditions and living conditions that are not even allowed in the U.S.  To illustrate, let's consider conditions in Haiti versus those in, say, Florida.
 
In 2016, as in many other years, a hurricane ripped through Haiti and then also impacted the Florida coast.  Much of Haiti's housing was left in ruins while Florida was only modestly impacted.  A factor in this difference is the strict building codes in Florida versus the makeshift shanty housing across much of Haiti.  Now, most of us would much prefer to live in the relative safety of Florida housing, as compared to a shack, but the point is that a house in Haiti might cost a few hundred dollars while a house in Florida might cost a few hundred thousand dollars.  A worker in Haiti might be satisfied with a $2/day job where the average annual income is only $400.  A Florida worker would struggle to survive on twenty times that (or $40/day).  Indeed, a Florida company would not even be allowed to hire a Florida worker at $5/hour (i.e. that $40/day).
 
Shrewd Widget company executives would shut down their Florida factory and move it to Haiti, especially if they could import those Haitian widgets back into the American market tarriff-free.  Indeed, all companies in Florida and across the U.S. needing unskilled labor might choose to do the same.  The problem isn't a question of our American labor force being able to "compete" globally.  The issue is that Florida building codes are imposed by a government entity which does not compensate for the expense it adds to the cost of living in Florida when negotiating trade deals.  And what is the effect to a community or a state when a factory closes down?
 
When a factory closes, it is more than just jobs and income that are lost.  The local city and school district loses a big chunk of its tax base which must be made up through cuts in services or increases in taxes.  The state loses part of its revenue, as well.  When free trade policies allow the free flow of imports back into the U.S. market, it may lower the cost of those items to consumers, but it undercuts other companies that are still located in the U.S.  When remaining U.S. companies are forced to relocate or close their factories, we again see the loss of tax base and income.
 
More than this loss of tax base and income, free trade with third world nations also has an overall negative impact on our economy.  When we have trade imbalances with a nation, importing and buying more products than we export, we are actually exporting cash out of our economy, into the economy of that foreign nation.  The effect is a shrinking of our money supply which actually makes it more difficult for other U.S. companies to sell their own products here in the U.S., slowly forcing them out of business, as well.  To correct that drain, the FED might choose to increase the money supply (i.e. print more worthless, unbacked money), but that would have an inflationary effect on the economy and would de-value every dollar you have in your savings account.
 
From a strictly free market viewpoint...  A consumer would be crazy to pay 3-4 times as much for a comperable product.  A company would be crazy to pay 10-20 times as much for unskilled labor costs over what it could pay elsewhere.  But... What makes sense from a consumer standpoint and what makes sense from a business standpoint would, in fact, damage the U.S. market immensely.
 
Other nations desparately want access to the American market because of one thing:  disposable income!  Americans have money beyond our need for subsistance...and we spend that disposable income.  This is the fuel that powers our economy and this is the leverage that we hold over other trade partners.
 
Some businesses crave access to other markets, like China, for instance, but most foreign markets do not offer anywhere near the same disposable income that is found in the U.S. market.  China's population is huge but its people must spend most of its income just to survive, so its market offers much less disposable income.
 
Open trade with a nation is only of benefit to the U.S. if that nation has disposable income with which to purchase our products.  So, while free trade with Japan or Canada "might" be of some benefit, free trade with China or Mexico or Haiti most certainly is not in our best interests. A nation of slaves has no means by which they can purchase our products.  The United States, on the other hand, has generally offered an awesome market for any product of value, which is why most foreign companies, despite their objections and threats of a trade war, would give almost anything to have access to our marketplace.
 
Then, there is the other dimension of foreign trade that no one ever seems to get to.  China, for example, is very good at reverse engineering products that are patented here in the U.S.  Even if we punish China with heavy tariffs on such items to discourage the practice, this has no impact upon their exports of those same products to other nations.  In order to protect our companies' R&D or intellectual property, we must pursue a more comprehensive trade policy with every nation that might receive such imports from countries that will not respect our patent laws.
 
If we keep America strong and her economy robust, then tarriffs can and should be one of our major sources of national revenue, not the American people.  It makes more sense that other nations should pay a "user fee", if you will, for access to our market.  The impoverishing of these United States of America must stop...and it will stop.  Vote for FRED.
Trade Imbalance
Our market's
strength lies
in disposable
income.
​​


I recently heard several politicians proclaiming that we have a "right" to good health care.  May I just say, "No, we don't!"
 
While some may want to claim good health care as some kind of God-given right, how would this supposed right to affordable health care be provided?  It would have to come at the hands of some doctor. Many Americans seem to just accept the fact that this anonymous doctor MUST provide this health care and must do so for whatever some bureaucrat says he should earn for the procedure (if anything).  This is not the description of a "right"; it is the description of "slavery".  No "right" of yours can impose service or obligations upon others.
 
Do we, likewise, have the "right" to force a mechanic to work on our car for what the government says he shall earn, or to force a cook to prepare meals for what a bureaucrat says the meal shall cost.  No "right" of yours can be used to press someone else into your service, unless their slavery has become your "right".  But this notion of forced labor for a wage that the government decides is at the very root of socialism, including socialized medicine.  
 
In a Free Market society, such as ours, anything that increases the demand for a service will raise the price of that service.  Insurance increases demand while also syphoning $15 Billion per year of our money out of the health care industry!  Increases demand?  Yes.  Who would we pay for health insurance and not take advantage of it at every opportunity?  Folks who might, otherwise, just stay home until their sniffles pass, now, go to the doctor, get a prescription, then wait for the ailment to pass.  Health insurance supposedly provides a spreading of the costs for serious illnesses and sudden expensive procedures, but we will ALWAYS pay vastly more for our care when insurance or government is a part of the mix.  Both add cost to medical care.
 
When you buy a loaf of bread at the store or pay a mechanic to fix your car, is the government or some insurance company directly involved in that transaction?  Of course not!  Buying the services of a doctor should be no different.  It is (or should be) a private transaction between you and your doctor.  No other entity should ever become involved or come between you and what your doctor believes to be the best treatment for your condition.
 
"But then...only the rich could afford health care!"  The rich always have and always will have the ability to buy more and better everything than the poor.  Even under Obamacare, if you make $25,000 per year and have a $5000 deductible on your health insurance, you can't actually "afford" health care...but you could afford it more if you weren't having to pay $2000 per year for your health insurance premiums on top of your deductible!  And where is that extra expense going?  Into the pockets of the insurance industry.  What if, instead, we promoted non-profit health coops?  What if, instead, we utilized tax-deductible health savings accounts?
 
Health Insurance not only increases demand on our health care providers, but the use of insurance itself increases costs.  Next time you visit your doctor, notice how many of the staff are providing care and how many others are merely dealing with insurance billing and processing.  For many doctors, dealing with insurance and/or Medicare requires them to double their staff.  Additionally, the insurance company, itself, is a for-profit business and that profit comes out of your wallet as added medical-related costs.
 
There only real alternative that we have been offered is letting the federal government run our health care system.  I've never seen the federal government run anything efficiently/effectively.  As Reagan used to say, "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem!"  So then, where does that leave us...?  Well, it leaves us, once again, looking outside the box.
 
I would prefer that all health insurance be abandoned if not banned in favor of a combination of health savings accounts and non-profit health coops with highly-restricted administrative costs.  The point of insurance is to spread the risk and sudden cost of major health issues across many other people to lessen the financial impact and still enable care to be provided.  There's no reason that we should also have to line the pockets of insurance companies and their stock-holders.  Coops get the same job done.
Affordable
Health Care
Is there another alternative to insurance or ObamaCare
E
W
Abortion,
Planned Parenthood,
and
Fetal Tissue
Harvesting
​​
    Under

    construction...
Some folks may object that I placed "Abortion" last in my discussion of issues.  In fact, I place Abortion at the bottom, the base, the foundation of my list of issues quite purposefully.  If a person cannot correctly reason through this issue of life and death, then they are wholly unqualified to lead the American people.
 
There is a tendency, especially among the anti-religious, to blame the Dark Ages on “the church”.  A more precise view would be that the Dark Ages was an era of ignorance promulgated by those who chose to not accept scientific reality.  We are seeing a new Dark Ages, a new barbarism spread by those who view themselves as enlightened.  Yet, it is these very individuals who ignore science, appealing to emotionalism in defense of the abortion industry and, make no mistake, it is an industry...one that has crossed serious ethical and constitutional boundaries.
 
In making the case against abortion, the pro-life camp has been rather foolish.  We cannot successfully argue that abortion is wrong because of some religious belief.  In this land of freedom, every man has the same freedom to exercise his own religious beliefs or his lack thereof.  Indeed, many in the pro-life camp are not really even pro-life because even they do not understand why abortion is wrong.
 
So, why is abortion wrong, if it is wrong?  What makes it wrong?  There is only one reason for us to oppose abortion as being wrong…and, in fact, there is only one thing wrong with abortion.  It is murder!  Is this hype, or a religious belief, or an opinion with which reasonable men can differ?  No.  It is the scientific reality if we can accept the simple definition that the intentional killing an innocent, living human being is murder.  Let’s break it down…
 
Is the unborn child “innocent”?  That is an almost absurd question.  Even if the child were conceived as a result of rape or incest, the child, itself, is surely innocent of any wrong-doing or criminal activity.  We do not execute children for the crimes of their fathers.  (The inclusion of “innocent” in this definition of “murder” is largely to dispel any notion that self-defense or capital punishment is somehow murder.)
 
Is the unborn child “living”?  There are only two possibilities – living or non-living.  Even those who choose to believe that the unborn child is just a lump of tissue have to admit that it is “living tissue”.  Non-living tissue does not function nor does it grow.  The unborn child is both, growing and functioning physiologically from the instant that the egg is fertilized.  It may not yet exist in its final form but, then, neither does a caterpillar resemble a butterfly; a caterpillar is nevertheless a living organism.  The unborn child may be parasitic in its fetal form, but its cells divide and normal physiological and bio-chemical functions take place.  It cannot be considered to be non-living, thus it must be living.
 
Is the unborn child “human”?  This one is simple.  As a matter of scientific fact, the fetus is, genetically, distinctly homo sapiens.
 
But is the unborn child a “being”?  On this point, we begin to hear the emotional chant for women’s health rights like a mantra of ignorance:  “women have the rights over their own bodies…”  Indeed, they do…but…  Is the fetus a separate organism unto itself or is it merely a part of the mother’s body?  Here, yet again, as a matter of scientific fact, every “part” of the mother’s body has the same genetic characteristics, the same chromosomes.  The unborn child, however, has a completely distinct genetic code, a combination of its parents' genes.
 
While a fetus may be contained within its mother’s body, that fact, alone, does not make it a “part” of the mother’s body.  If that same mother also had a tapeworm, there would be no doubt nor debate; that tapeworm is a parasite, but it is clearly a separate and distinct organism from the host.  Likewise, the unborn child, though parasitic in nature during its fetal stage, is clearly a separate and distinct organism.  It is a being.
 
What about pregnancies resulting from rape or incest?  What about cases involving the health of the mother?  Even many folks in the pro-life community fail to sufficiently reason out this issue.  As a matter of humanity, for us to treat an unborn "living human being" any differently than we would treat a healthy 5-year old child is unethical and inhumane, and no emotional argument can justify taking intentional and aggressive action to kill it.  We would not execute a 5-year old child just because we discovered belatedly that it was the product of incest or a rape.
 
Even when the life of the mother might be endangered, the mentality of the physician should be, must be, to save all lives if humanly possible.  As in any emergency triage situation, an ethical doctor would make hard decisions, seeking to save as many lives as possible.  For example, in the case of separating conjoined twins, the doctors would never just jump to a decision and say, “Well, of course, we’re going to kill the left one and save the right one.”  Can the unborn child be saved in the case of a tubal pregnancy?  Perhaps not, but if doctors pursued life as eagerly as they pursue death, sufficient technology might someday present itself.
 
Life is our most fundamental right, a right respected and extended to all, citizens or not.  Any man or woman, any politician or voter, who pragmatically surrenders this basic foundational right to the barbarism of death mill murderers and those who utilize them…any such person who yields and thinks themselves to be the least bit civilized is, in truth, delusional.  Life must be protected and murder belongs in that proverbial "dark alley" that pro-deathers so decry!
 
Planned Parenthood: 
 
It is stunning and dumbfounding to me that Liberals support the death of innocent unborn children and decry the death penalty for those who are guilty of horrific crimes.  It reminds me of a Biblical passage…
 
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
        Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness...
 
I hesitate to call any persons or ideologies “evil”, partly because it is an effective but poor leadership tactic to demonize your enemy.  However, evil exists… These clinics harvest “healthy, functioning” body parts from the unborn then turn around and insist that they are not “alive”.  I don’t use such language very often, but…  There is a special place in hell…
 
While the pro-death movement cries foul over recent heavily-edited videos depicting Planned Parenthood representatives talking openly about their business of selling harvested baby parts, you can’t honestly say that whole, un-spliced sentences that clearly refer to this practice are nullified by editing done elsewhere.  Their very language disproves their own contentions that these unborn children are just wads of “fetal tissue”.  When they speak of harvesting healthy, functioning organs, it is their clear acknowledgement that even they believe that they are dealing with “life”.
 
We are told that Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization that does crucial work in the area of women’s health.  I will contend only this…  If you think Planned Parenthood is a wondrous organization, then take money out of your own pocket and contribute it to Planned Parenthood.  Such a “worthy” organization should have no need to feed at the public trough, taking the hard-earned money of Americans, forcing them to financially support activities that they find to be abhorrent and that are devastating to their sincere moral conscience.
 
But, of course, Senator Blunt voted for the Omnibus bill which continued funding the organization with OUR tax money.
A Litmus Test,
Not for Religious
belief, but for
Rational Thought