Question and Answer
If you have a question you would like to have answered, please email it to us and we will post the answers on this page.
Quick Links
"Do you oppose gun control laws that prevent convicted felons from owning guns? What about convicted violent gang offenders? Do you oppose the gun control restrictions that make it illegal for anyone but law enforcement to carry guns in schools?"
The short answer is the constitution makes no such exceptions and since it is the supreme law of the land I cannot make such exceptions.
The long answer is that it is not just a matter of constitutional allegiance for me, although that would be sufficient. There are some very petty offenses classified as a felony these days. Going 100 mph for example. Once we've accepted the notion that felons can't own guns, the only remaining step to confiscation is to broaden the definition of felon. If one can lose their constitutional rights they are not rights at all. Rather, they are privileges. We must not forget that people have rights and governments have privileges, not the other way around. Furthermore, if a person can't be trusted with a gun they can't be trusted to follow the law that says they are not to have one. And, for that matter, if they can't be trusted with a gun, they probably can't be trusted loose around town. Restricting convicted felons and violent gang members from gun ownership sounds good and gets cheers from the bleachers but in actual application it is an ineffectual law because people honest enough to obey the law are probably honest enough to have a gun. And those who are not honest are unaffected. With regard to schools, the question that begs asking is why is it that it is always the gun-free zones that get shot up? Schools would be a safer place if teachers and staff could carry a gun if they wished. It would be a deterrent to would be shooters simply to know that they might be met with opposing force. And if, heaven forbid, some angry young student did proceed to shoot up a high school, a teacher or parent who could end it by killing the shooter would save many lives. Columbine High School was a mile from my house. I was home-schooled and wasn't there that day but I just as easily could have been. I lost friends that foggy day in April. I knew Eric and Dylan, the attackers. They lived not far from my house. They would throw big rocks at ducks and snag them with fishing poles. They were just bad apples. Columbine being a gun-free zone was a plus for their sinister plans and a minus for my law-abiding friends who watched from under their desks unable to do anything. So yes, I do oppose the said restrictions because they are incapable of accomplishing their intended goal but are effective at producing an infringement upon the right that "shall not be infringed."
"You are pro-life but where do you come down on sanctity of life as it relates to the death penalty?"
The first thing that must be recognized is the difference between an unborn child being killed for the sake of convenience or any other circumstance that is expedient, and an adult being executed as a consequence of a crime that merits such severe and irreversible punishment. The life of the murderer is no less valuable or sacred than the life of the child. But the child is innocent. The murderer is not. I soundly believe that there is a time and a place for capital punishment. However, my confidence in the ability of a government to carry this punishment out without mistake is far less sound. I cannot overstate the caution with which I would approach this issue. If capital punishment were to be carried out it would have to require the most thorough due process imaginable. If there were any remote possibility of innocence, the state should always err on the side of caution.
"I thought the national mint printed money and the Federal Reserve controlled interest rates. Additionally, what could you do about the Federal Reserve from the State House?"
The term print is used loosely to mean the creation of money. You are correct that the mint does the actual paper and ink work of printing, but they are just filling the orders for the Federal Reserve. However, it is important to note that only a very small percentage of the money created is actually printed. Most of it is just electronic, what the banking industry calls "checkbook money." And the Fed in turn loans this "out of thin air" money at whatever interest rate they want. The Federal Reserve system that is owned and controlled by its private member banks is more or less a cartel structure formed in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson, who later regretted it. The authority to create money out of nothing that was given to this banking cartel when it became the Federal Reserve created a very serious problem that is now coming to a head. This isn't the first time something like this has been tried. The Romans would inflate their money supply. The method they used to debase their currency was not to print more paper, since they used gold coins, but instead to shave the edges off of coins and melt the shavings into new coins. The Continental Congress had left the gold standard and printed boat loads, literally, to finance their runamuck wartime spending, shortly before the drafting of the US Constitution. When the constitution mandates in Article 1, Section 10 that no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, this is not some brilliant stroke of foresight. Rather, it is hindsight to some quite recent and disastrous experiments with fiat money. Now back to that very serious problem that is now coming to a head. What this creation of money out of nothing accomplishes is this: the private bankers have an endless supply of money that can be lent at interest. Good for them, bad for us. It is also a way for Congress to pay for bills without raising taxes which is unpopular.
However, the average American is still the one who pays the bill in the end when your hard earned dollars suddenly won't buy as much because they have been debased by the creation of new money. This inflationary transfer of wealth has been the demise of many nations throughout history. There is a new and unique component to our situation that is unprecedented in human history. We have a fiat paper money as the world reserve currency. This has put the Fed and the banking industry in a very precarious situation. They have created pockets of "investment", or more appropriately "malinvestment," through the injection of these inflated dollars into the economy. These inflationary hot spots or bubbles scream for more inflation lest their bubble pop and their malinvestment be dissolved as the market corrects to actual supply and demand conditions.
The other group that the Fed and banking industry is trying to appease is foreign holders of dollars who don't like seeing the value of those dollars diminished as the Fed creates more. This group, however, does not go screaming to the Federal Reserve or to Congress, or to anyone. They just begin to trade their weakening dollars for other currencies, gold, real estate or anything that they believe will hold its value, unlike the dollar. This influx of once foreign held dollars into the country has the same affects on the economy as freshly printed dollars. This is called velocity - the speed at which money changes hands. When confidence in the dollar is low everyone scrambles to get rid of their dollars for something better and velocity is high. When confidence in the dollar is high, like in the early American industrial revolution, people hang onto their dollars and velocity is low. This accumulation of capital in private hands is tremendously healthy for the economy as opposed to what we see now which is the accumulation of debt in private hands. By the way, capital formation is not good for the banking industry who would like to see everyone paying them interest. But I digress. The point is, when you get inflation from inside the country coupled with velocity from outside the country you wind up with what is called "hyper-inflation", that is the price of goods and services being noticeably more every day. And suddenly your life-savings or $3,000/month retirement you worked 20 years for won't buy groceries and BINGO, the national debt has come in and your broke. This whole thing could happen in the course of a week if a country like China or Saudi Arabia, who both hold a substantial portion of American debt, were to pull their finger out of the dike. Another way that the Fed increases the money supply is by allowing its member banks to lend money they don't have in the form of "checkbook money." This is called fractional reserve banking. When they lower interest rates, their member banks take advantage of this by offering cheap loans to people which results in more loaned out made up money out there on the market, chasing the same number of goods and driving prices up. Well, actually driving the dollar down. For more information on this type of economics I'd recommend the Mises Institute.
Now, what can a State Legislator do about this problem? The US Congress is held in check by the state legislatures as stated in the constitution. The US Congress has failed to address this problem due to the obvious perks, therefore it's the state legislatures obligation to call for their adherance to the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, as stated in Article 6. The Federal Reserve system is not allowable under the Constitution, given legal tender laws and the 10th amendment. After the Great Depression, there were systems similar to the Fed set up for several different industries. Same exact structure as the Federal Reserve, a cartel. It was called the National Industrial Recovery Act. The poultry industry challenged this structure as to its constitutionality and it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NIRA was unconstitutional and it was disbanded immediately. There is no difference in the banking cartel that is the Federal Reserve and the poultry, timber, steel cartels set up by the NIRA except that the Federal Reserve has never been brought before the Supreme Court. This is the most practical approach. The state would have good and sufficient reason to challenge this in court so that the state could comply with article 1 section 10 of the Constitution. Another approach would be to request that the US Congress disband the Fed and return to sound money without the use of the courts. However, this seems unlikely to me. A third option is found in Article 5 of the Constitution. Three-fourths of the state legislatures can amend the Constitution. We wouldn't need to amend the Constitution because this system is already forbidden. But a specific, however redundant, amendment may be in order.
What are your positions on the following issues?
AGIA – The Alaska Gasline Inducement Act I believe is the best thing our governor could do given the fact that the resources are owned by the government. I think granting a totally unnecessary exclusive license is a little bit silly. I fear what will happen is that Trans-Canada will take the $500 million and sign on to the Denali plan. I do like the scramble that AGIA has made towards pipeline construction and Sarah will do the best thing for the people with what she has. In that respect I support it. However, if we really want a just approach to resource development, it should be modeled after the approach that works so well in Texas where the people own the resources under their land. In Alaska, most of the land people can’t even own. For that matter, 60% of Alaska the state doesn’t even own. The federal government controls it like we’re some sort of colony which is a violation of Article 1, section 8 of the constitution.
Subsistence rights – Alaska state constitution says that every Alaskan has the right to subsistence fishing and hunting. The federal government disagrees with that. The 10th amendment prohibits them from having any say so on the matter. And rightfully so. Why should a senator from Massachusetts be telling us Alaskans what we can or cannot do at Chitina. And since Article 6 states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and the 10th amendment says that is not their jurisdiction, we should proceed with uniform subsistence rights as our state constitution requires, any federal ruling “to the contrary notwithstanding.” If the uniformity of subsistence rights is to be changed the only proper way to go about that would be through a change to the Alaska constitution. I would not agree with this change, but that would be the proper way.
Native rights – We do not derive our rights from a group that we belong to. The concept of collective rights is a flawed concept indeed. We have our rights because we are human beings and for no other reason. Our rights are individual. If we really want to take a step towards upholding human rights our government should stop sorting people by superficial physical traits.
The Pebble Mine – Ballot measure 4 is an ill-conceived proposition from outside groups. Under the clean water initiative a mine would not be allowed to discharge drinking water and it will result in nearly every mine in Alaska being shut down. Pebble Mine can be done under existing regulations with virtually no negative impact. If the outside groups pushing Ballot Measure 4 are really concerned about water they should first look at the laws on the books already. I think those would allay their concerns. I am also very unimpressed with some of the misguiding information that has accompanied the push for this measure, like “existing permits will not be affected.” I have been told this by many a clean water initiative advocate. While this may be true, existing permits which expire as often as annually would not be able to be renewed because of the clean water initiative. If it passes I’ll be shocked and will definitely be voting no.
Energy development for the Interior – There are some very strict regulations on the generation and sale of power. These are no big deal for the big players like GVEA and Usibelli Coal Mine but it can be cost prohibitive for an entrepreneur who would like to take a stab at some renewable energy resources. One of the largest barriers is permitting. Permitting has become an industry of its own. One thing that has contributed to this that can be changed is that department heads are on a sliding pay scale based on how many people are underneath them. The only way for them to get a raise is to bloat the bureaucracy underneath them. This hurts the government, it hurts the people, it hurts the business community and it’s contrary to all sound reason. Three steps: 1. Change the pay scale 2. Streamline the regulations 3. Expedite the permitting. Do those three things and people like you will seize the day and meet the need.
“I’ve long felt that community is one of the most important guiding principles – maybe just behind family. So I’m always disheartened to see large-scale enthusiasm for political candidates who seem not to believe in any common goals of society. Why do you say nothing about community on your website?”
Short Answer: Governments fail miserably at producing community while individuals succeed beautifully. It is the legislator’s job to uphold justice and defend individual freedom. This provides an environment where the individuals are able to do their job of creating and sustaining community, friendship and brotherhood.
Long Answer: Community and the brotherhood of man is a good thing, but it must be done by individuals on a person-to-person level, not by legislators through the government with the use of law/force. One must understand that law is force. The job of a legislator is to write laws, determining where the use of force is appropriate. Every human being has an inherent, natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and a corresponding right and, I dare say, obligation to defend, even with force, against encroachments upon that right. Defense is the only proper application of force. These same principles that guide the individual are to guide the group of individuals organized into a government. Government is the collective extension of the individual right to self-defense. It would be wrong for me as an individual to promote a good thing by force. It would be wrong for me as a legislator to promote a good thing by force. And since the implementation of law and therefore force is my concern as a legislator, the principle of community is absent.
What do you plan to do about providing better education for the youth of Fairbanks as well as providing a safe environment for kids whose parents must both work?
If we expect our schools to raise our children we are asking for a disaster. Parents must raise the children. Schools can educate the children. We must take steps to ensure that schools are equipping children with academic skills necessary for life rather than molding every aspect of their person into what the government system would prefer. Sadly, what students need the most – reading, writing, and math – is often neglected as teachers attempt to raise other people’s children. This they cannot do. They are spread way to thin. What winds up happening is children are raised more or less by their peers and exit high school knowing only how to “fit in.” It will be a scary scenario indeed when this generation of fitter inners take the reigns of the nation as leaders. Simply put: Children need their parents. Here are some specifics that may help:
- Allow a voucher system so that schools compete for those vouchers. This puts more control in the hands of parents and helps raise the bar of academic excellence. It will help make the schools more responsive to parents who can take their child and voucher to another school.
- Remove regulatory and tax burdens from small businesses, thus spurring economic growth. This will help parents who would otherwise be financially strapped to spend more time with their children. Also, the Federal Reserve and the whole inflationary mess must go because it keeps everyone on a financial treadmill and unable to spend time with their family.
- Relax child labor laws. Don’t anyone get the wrong impression here! I am not advocating for a pencil factory full of 8-year-olds. But we have no place to gripe about teenagers skateboarding at the mall while at the same time making it illegal for them to work. It was a character building experience for me to work hard and get paid at that age and it would be for them.
How will you improve healthcare in Fairbanks so people can get care for them and their kids without having to wait three weeks to six months?
I would eliminate the Certificate of Need program. It is a government-protected monopoly for the out-of-state bully healthcare provider FMH/Banner Health. My opponent is on the hospital’s board of directors and single-handedly stopped Sarah Palin’s House Bill 337, which would have eliminated the Certificate of Need, by denying it a hearing in his legislative committee. This is the single biggest reason Mr. Kelly has to go. He is doing favors for this wildly profitable monopoly and you and I are paying for it. It is for many people literally a matter of life and death and I will have no mercy on those who would defend this injustice.
What will you do to avoid a return to importing out-of-state workers for 80-90% of gas-line related jobs?
I support local hire whenever possible. Alaska is often treated like a colony, rather than a state. Outsiders think they can come here, pillage, and then leave. I will fight hard for state’s rights and our sovereignty, which would allow us to develop our resources at our own pace rather than the stop and go status quo of the federal government that creates these shortages. I will introduce a resolution modeled after Oklahoma’s Resolution 1089 which more or less tells the federal government to back out of our business or else. We must not forget that the federal government works for the states and not the other way around.
What do you plan to do to retain workers in municipal and state jobs?
As a small business owner I learned early on that the most expensive place to cut corners is on your people. We should give them the very best care possible. The state does a lot of things it has no business doing. But when something is their job they should do it first class.
I hope this sufficiently answered your questions. If not, please let me know.
