September 8, 2010
Welcome
Four years ago I challenged Senator Mike DeWine for the Republican nomination to represent the people of Ohio in the United States Senate. Circumstances did not play out as I would have liked them, but the hardest part for me was the gut wrenching feeling that nothing was going to change - the status quo would continue, and the Nation we leave for our children and future generations would continue to flounder. Sadly my prognosis was right on target.
I am angry and I know you are as well. I am angry and sad as I continue to see my leaders leave behind the principles and ideals which built the country we became. I am befuddled and bewildered as they create a debt load for future generations that will encumber them for their entire lives. I am greatly concerned as I watch an educational system fracture to create two educational classes with a deep schism in between. And I am frustrated as a federal bureaucracy continues to hamper the entrepreneurial spirit and small business which has in the past created jobs for Americans as we became the technological and manufacturing envy of the world.
But I am particularly upset with the actions of our leaders to whom we have entrusted our future. Their aloofness is evident every day with only an occasional visit to the populace as a re-election campaign looms near – otherwise, missing in action. Their discounting of the concerns of the American people when it comes to some of the most basic issues like health care, illegal immigration, federal debt, education, Social Security, Medicare, and energy is an arrogance which can no longer be tolerated. Their unwillingness to even discuss the issues must be deemed unacceptable.
I am determined to find a way to continue to speak out in the name of common sense and entice the populace to take a pro-active interest in government rather than a passive “I give up” approach. We must re-engage our citizenry.
President Lincoln spoke a prayer at Gettysburg in which he asked that “this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not parish from the earth.” If we are to retain that belief, we the people must get involved.
As I stated earlier, I ran for the Republican nomination to the US Senate because I feared the direction the Republican Party and the Nation were taking. Over the last four years the drift has continued and the gulf has widened to the extent that I can no longer consider myself a Republican stalwart. Two years ago, I decide to cease my party affiliation and become an independent.
As an Independent with the desire to be a citizen legislator, my goal would be to redefine what it means to be a “public servant” and to use the opportunity to facilitate the involvement “of the people,” for I fervently believe when the people truly stand up to be heard, our leaders will listen – think the Dubai Ports, illegal immigration, and off-shore drilling, health care, and the trials of the alleged terrorists in New York City (see comments below). What “we the people” need is a set of eyes and ears in the Senate who will return to Ohio each week and foster a dialog with the people on a regular basis in each of the eighty-eight counties.
I ask that you consider what I have to offer and the direction in which I suggest we move to foster a cultural change to make Washington more responsive to “we the people.”
William G. Pierce, P.E.
Printer-friendly version
You refered to "terrorist trials" in New York City. This statement shows that you presume the accussed person is guilty before he has been tried.
Every person has a God-given right to due process of law. This right is endowed by God, not by the Bill of Rights, and God has granted EVERY human being the same rights, not just American citizens.
I urge you to reconsider your position on this from a Biblical Christian perspective of equallity before God and under the law.
Nathan, you are absolutely correct as our legal system is based on the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. My use of “terrorist trials” was not intended to suggest that I had already convicted the individuals; rather it was using the vernacular commonly used in the MSM and in the sense of brevity. In reality it should have been “trials of the alleged terrorists.”
The main reasons to move the trials remain – the inconvenience to day to day lives in NYC, the projected costs of the trials for individuals who have already admitted their involvement, and the pain to the survivors of those who lost their lives that day.
Congress and the courts have given blessing to the original plan to hold military tribunals and we should return to that plan. Civilian trials generate a problem which has received very little coverage – the jurors and their families will likely be marked targets for the remainder of their lives.
I do thank you for correcting me as it represents the exchange of ideas on a website I hope to become more interactive.
Thus, protonix
Inconvenience? Gee, William! Sometimes doing one's duty and doing the right thing can put one in harms way. This must be accepted if one would be free. I won't believe that you don't understand that. After all; haven't you served in the military? So why are you taking this tack? Shall we hold star chamber for jaywalkers, purse snatchers, and members of dangerous "youth gangs" for fear that juror's and their families may become "marked targets." I'm not being flippant here; I'm just carrying your statement to its logical extreme. Plenty of those youth gang members would gladly "target" a citizen who sent their friend up the river, eh? You seem like a cut above the usual political office seeker, but be warned: you are not immune to ending up at their level. Most likely no politician is bad from day one. Evil has a way of accruing, doesn't it? Slowly over time, as one principle after another is abandoned for sake of expediency, "convenience" or to please or placate some allegedly important group?
Many of us have grown weary of supporting would-be "elected representatives" who refuse to mention the real issues. . . issues such as what really happened on 911 and who is responsible... issues such as America under the thrall of AIPAC. . . issues such as the U.S.S. Liberty. . . issues such as the bogas "Federal" Reserve System, which is probably at the heart of our other problems.
Are you willing to address the real issues? Or are you going to play word games and attempt to frighten us into accepting tyranny?
Putting it another way, given that those who mention the real issues are shuned by the media, and will be demonized and rendered unelectable by the above-referenced interest group, then is it worth soiling one's soul going through the process of trying to hold your tongue and attempt to sneak under their radar. Few have succeeded at that. Why not base your effort on truth, fact, and Right.That way you will at least accomplish something, if only to encourage and rally others to the cause. But no good thing will be built upon a foundation of lies and evasion of the truth. Will it?
Tom - In retrospect, the use of the word “inconvenience” may not have been apropos, but it cannot be disputed that the day to day operations in NYC would be severely disrupted by the required amount of security and the media circus that would certainly evolve around the “event” which could last 6 months or longer. Why? Because of the arbitrary decision to hold the trials of a few alleged terrorists – who have already acknowledged their involvement – a few blocks from the site of a national tragedy.
In addition, the expense for the security has been estimated as high as $200 million for NYC and/or the Federal Government at a time when the resources simply are not available.
Many trials have a change in venue for one reason or another, and in this case the change was already agreed upon by Congress and the Courts. Are my liberties threatened by the plan to try the alleged terrorists, “alleged” enemy combatants, by a military tribunal rather than a civil court in this specific instance - absolutely not, and I would suggest that yours are not either.
William,
You know what's said of those who would give up liberty for temporary security and who love money better than freedom. Now even if you take those suspects out tomorrow morning and execute them sans-process, your security is going to be VERY temporary indeed if you believe that they are the parties ultimately responsible for the crime.
I realize that your hands are tied in this and coming out and saying what you may well actually think would end your political career very quickly, so I won't hold it against you. Just consider this:
Your election to any office will be worth very little, given that you will be one alone against an embedded nest of criminals. However, whatever organization you are able to build while running for election could well be... priceless. So for the god's sake, please build it upon a sound foundation. Thank you.
I'm pasting below a post written by Joshua Dermer at http://joshdermer.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Tribunals vs. Civilian Courts
Recently I've been thinking about the ongoing debate regarding whether we ought to put the 9-11 terror suspects on trial in regular civilian courts. Specifically, there's been an incredible amount of outrage because these terror suspects are being brought to New York City for trial in Federal Court. Of course the warmongering neocons are have gone apoplectic over this, preferring military tribunals instead. Apparently it's not enough that the terror suspects have been detained indefinitely for years.
Make no mistake: if these terror suspects are guilty (and I believe they are), then they should be tried, convicted, and swiftly executed. Yet the neocons would have us think that we need military tribunals in order to do this. Are they correct? Will justice be lost if we bring them into civilian courts for trial? This might surprise some of you, but I happen to agree with President Obama's decision to bring the terror suspects to trial in Federal Court. I give the following reasons:
1. Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity given to piracies committed against American commercial vessels on the high seas. In the process of rescuing the crew of the Maersk Alabama, the lone pirate who survived was taken into custody and was brought to New York to stand trial in Federal Court. This is perfectly consistent with the authority given to Congress by the U.S. Constitution under Article I, Section 8:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,
While committing terrorist acts isn't quite the same as piracy, I would argue that it ought to be governed by the same standards. Terrorism is both a felony committed on the high seas and most definitely an offense against the Law of Nations. At the end of the day, is there any substantive difference between hijacking a ship on the ocean and hijacking an airplane? I don't think so.
2. Terrorists are not uniformed combatants. As such, they are not subject to the rules which govern prisoners of war. Like pirates, these terrorists do not operate under the banner of any particular nation. Indeed, they know no borders. They operate in spite of national boundaries. They are no more enemy combatants than the Somali pirates or members of the Mafia. Consider that Timothy McVeigh also committed a terrorist attack on American soil and he was tried in Federal Court, not under a military tribunal.
3. The Constitution does not authorize the use of military tribunals when there are fully functioning civilian courts. This restraint was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866). Since we've already established that these terror suspects are not uniformed combatants, it follows that they must fall under the jurisdiction of civilian courts. This is especially true given that the United States are not in an official state of war (we have not been under an official state of war since 1945).
Given the language we see in the 5th Amendment, due process isn't limited to citizens only. It states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I see no reason to deny these terror suspects due process. This is yet another argument for why they need to be tried in civilian courts instead of military tribunals.
Therefore, in light of what I've articulated above, it would be unconstitutional to subject these terror suspects to military tribunals. We Americans established constitutionalism precisely because we wanted to rid ourselves of the very form of arbitrary government these neocons are trying to enact through the use of tribunals. Indeed, arbitrary government means the death of liberty. Only time will tell what happens, but I hope some sound constitutional exegesis will silence the neocons.
What are your answers to the Campaign For Liberty's 20Q's? Simple Y/N please.
1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207/ S. 604 in the 111th Congress)?
2. Will you support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage?
3. Will you vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms?
4. Will you support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements?
5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?
6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?
7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?
8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?
9. Will you support the American Sovereignty Act to restrict the Executive's ability to forge international agreements that lessen our sovereignty?
10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?
11. Will you oppose any attempt to nationalize our health care system, including any sort of public option for insurance?
12. Will you oppose so-called "Cap and Trade" legislation?
13. Will you vote to eliminate the IRS?
14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?
15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose Patriot Act renewal that includes such items?
16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?
17. Will you oppose the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" and any move toward a North American Union?
18. Will you support legislation that ensures Members of Congress have at least 72 hours to read any bill before it is allowed to come to the House floor?
19. Will you oppose all tax increases?
20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
Please see my answers to the 20 questions you submitted the other day in the “Issues” pull down menu.
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer these. I have alerted the Campaign For Liberty that you have answered in hopes they will update their Ohio summary page:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=OH
You are the first Ohio candidate for U.S. Senate who has replied.
I have a couple comments regarding your answers -
Question 2 - I ask that you reconsider your position regarding capital gains taxes on silver and gold. Since silver and gold are Constitutional money, we need our elected representatives to support sound money. The fiat Federal Reserve Notes are not backed by anything of substantive value and as such are subject to the hidden tax of inflation, hyper-inflation, and political manipulation. A great first step to returning to sound money would be to remove capital gains tax on Constitutional money, and then legalize gold and silver backed currency to initially compete with Federal Reserve Notes (FRN's) with the eventual goal of deprecating FRN's through competition.
Question 15 - There is really no question of the abominable and unconstitutional nature of the unpatriotic "Patriot Act." It is an assault on 4th and 5th Amendment protections, Habeas Corpus, and 1st Amendment through gagging anyone from revealing they were served a self-written (no judge) search warrant or sneak and peak search.
I would specifically like to see your comments on your position regarding repeal of the Patriot Act. Can you append that to your answers?
Thanks again!
Post new comment