The issue that's at the top of my priorities is bringing about publicly funded elections. Until special interests are put into check in Washington, no other issues will matter. Efforts to reform them in the current political environment will be undermined by meddling lobbyists and their corporate backers to make sure that whatever laws are past will work to their advantage and not for the public good. America has had enough of Government working for corporations and special interests at the expense of the people.

I support the Public Online Information Act which requires Executive Branch agencies to publish all publicly available information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats. It also creates an advisory committee to help develop government-wide Internet publication policies.

As matters of Constitutional importance come up, I think it is important to turn to history and understand the context in which the Constitution was originally written. There are some clauses that stand up better to the tests of time than others, such as the Bill of Rights. There are also sections of the Constitution that have been completely ignored in public discourse and in the passage of federal laws, such as Public Law 62-5. The question of whether or not the Constitution is a "living" document I think is answered by the fact that it includes within its articles, instructions on how it can be changed.

Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe in the natural right of all individuals to protect themselves and to have access to the tools that allow them to do so including firearms insomuch as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I do not support renewing the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (AKA the Federal Assault Weapons Ban). Such legislation does not prevent crime or deny criminals access to such weapons. They only infringe upon the natural rights of law abiding citizens to acquire and legally use such firearms however they please--again, as long as they do not use those tools to infringe on the rights of others.

I personally do not own any firearms. I have used them recreationally on occasion and as part of my training when I served in the U.S. Navy and, frankly, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if my life depended on it. Having been diagnosed and treated for clinical depression over the years, I never thought it wise for me to own a gun but I have no issue with any law abiding citizen who chooses to own a gun for their protection and recreation and everyone that I know who owns a gun is a law abiding citizen.

As a US Navy veteran I've had my share of difficulties with the VA. In the last ten years there has been a great deal of improvement but things could be a whole lot better, particularly where healthcare is concerned. Since the civilian healthcare system has so many issues to deal with--not the least of which is the prospect of federal reform--I think that our veterans, after dedicating years of their lives to voluntarily serving their country, shouldn't have to navigate the mess that is our civilian healthcare system. I propose that ALL veterans, upon completion of their service in the military, be automatically enrolled into the VA healthcare system with full medical and dental coverage. No veteran should have to be placed on a waiting list to be able to receive healthcare after all they have sacrificed in the service of our nation.

Veterans applying for service-connected disability benefits also need a break. We need to reform the process by which they are evaluated and make these determinations of eligibility while they are still wearing the uniform of the US military so that there is no gap in their treatment when they are discharged from active duty.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that Judge Napalitano has to say but he gives us a lot to think about. I share this for his interesting insights into the USA PATRIOT ACT.

US Foreign Policy during the first decade of the 21st century has largely been an embarrassment. The United States has only recently begun to regain its moral standing in the world after the horrendous actions and consequences of the Bush administration's "cowboy" diplomacy. While I do not support a policy of political and economic isolationism by any means, I do think the time has long past when we should have started to rethink our priorities as a nation both militarily and economically.

Do we need military bases in foreign nations anymore? How much of the deterrence afforded us by land-based military facilities can just as effectively be maintained through the use of aircraft carrier battle groups? I think this question should be asked on a case by case basis in regard to our foreign military presence. Some military facilities may be more easily replaced than others by Naval forces keeping our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines out of harms way until absolutely necessary.

On the economic front, our nation has allowed itself to be spoiled by a combination of unfettered greed and the desire to get "the best deal possible" on goods and services and the global economy has been more than willing to accommodate us. Unfortunately, our pursuit of these deals has lead to the decimation, to put it mildly, of our own economy and our ability as a nation to produce goods and services for ourselves. Again, I do not advocate an isolationist view but something must be done for our nation to regain its economic independence for the good of our population. Moving away from a model that relies on consumption for 70% of our economy would be a good start. This can be accomplished through a number of steps like tariffs on imported goods, incentivizing the retention of domestic production capacity and investing heavily in raising our education standards.

War should always be avoided and used only as a last resort in response to a direct attack on our nation by another nation-state and in response to a similar attack on an ally as defined by a specific international alliance such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Unfortunately, since World War Two, this definition has rarely been met in our conflicts with other countries. The two most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been a mixed bag. I feel that the war in Iraq is illegal and we should never have entered into it. I felt that there was legal justification for the war in Afghanistan, which was entered into with support from NATO under Article 5 of that treaty. Unfortunately, the political priorities of the Bush administration crippled our efforts in Afghanistan because the war that they really wanted was with Iraq which had more to do, in my view, with a vendetta against Saddam Hussein by George W. Bush than any supposed threat posed to the U.S. by the nation of Iraq. At this point I think that our military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq should come to an end as quickly as possible. The situation in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan may be better suited to more clandestine tactics and operations carried out by special forces.

I stand strongly against the Federal government interfering in matters it is not Constitutionally authorized to enter into. This touches on my concerns regarding Public Law 62-5 and also matters concerning healthcare reform. I think that there are solutions that the federal government can implement to make healthcare reform easier to achieve such as removing anti-trust exemptions that insurance companies have been abusing for years, passing legislation requirement that all health insurance companies operate as non profit corporations to ensure premiums are used to pay for treatment and not pad the pockets of executives or inflate share prices as well as making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions or to drop coverage when a premium holder makes a legitimate claim. I think the federal government should do all that it is constitutionally permitted to in order to make sure that people can be treated for their illnesses and not be financially crippled for it. If anything, the federal government should do what it can to help individual states implement healthcare reform that meets the unique needs of each state and not try to implement a federal catch-all system that might work for one state, be overkill for another or fall short of the needs for a third.

A lot of people talk about the importance of science and math in public education. While I do think that we should improve the United States' standing in science and math education in the world, it shouldn't be at the expense of the arts. I'll be revisiting this topic periodically but for now I'd like to share these enlightening comments by Ken Robinson:

I believe that we should do everything that we can to protect the environment and curb pollution of our air, land and water. I am disappointed that certain political factions have taken such strong stands to deny concerns about global warming/climate change for the sake of protecting financial interests and selfish, wasteful attitudes at the expense of the environment and natural resources we are to leave to our children and grandchildren. When it comes to deciding what to do about global warming, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the science, I believe that it is wise to err on the side of caution. Instead of asking ourselves, "Is global warming real or not?" we should be asking ourselves what the consequences will be of our willingness or unwillingness to take action. So-called "conservatives" will argue that it's a hoax and if we try to prevent it, all it will do is cause economic turmoil so we should do nothing. But if the "Conservatives" are wrong and we do nothing, we destroy our environment. Is that a risk we are willing to take? Especially when most "conservatives" aren't basing their conclusions on science but ideology and economic concerns. Whereas if global warming is real and we act to prevent it, wouldn't short term economic difficulties--which will only be temporary--be worth the long term health of the environment?

I'm inclined to protect the environment for the sake of our posterity and leaving the world better than we found it, not because of the ideology of any one political faction.

To put it into simple and logical terms, I recommend watching this video produced by public school science teacher, Greg Craven: