Thursday, March 03, 2016

A quick guide to libel laws in England and Wales By Sense About Science

Source: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/A_quick_guide_to_libel_laws_in_England_and_Wales.pdf

Libel laws in England and Wales are notoriously complicated and restrictive. Sense About Science launched our campaign to Keep Libel Laws out of Science in June 2009, when we became aware of the extent to which our libel laws were chilling scientific discussion and open debate. We were surprised to hear how our libel laws were chilling discussion in so many different areas, but coming to the libel laws as scientists, we had a steep learning curve. We were helped in this by many fantastic lawyers and experts, and we thought we should share what we have learnt.

Our libel laws will be changing soon: because of the huge groundswell of public support for libel reform, the Government has published a draft defamation bill – the first attempt to reform our libel laws in over a century. In the meantime…

Defamation, slander and libel – what’s the difference?1

*Defamation is the term applied to all public statements that can damage the reputation of another individual or party.

*Slander is defamation in an impermanent form, and usually refers to speech.

*Libel is defamatory material in a permanent recorded form - in a newspaper, a book, on a TV or radio programme, a website, a blog, a drawing, or even a letter sent from one individual to another.

Where did the libel laws come from?

English libel law was invented by the judges of the Queen's Bench as an alternative to duelling, to allow gentlemen to defend their reputations without resorting to violence. Like trespass and negligence, libel is a form of civil law. Civil law is concerned with the rights and duties of citizens, unlike criminal law, which addresses offences against society, such as murder or assault.

Problems with the libel laws have been recognised for centuries – the Guardian’s first ever editorial in 1821 included a call for libel law reform.1 Supporters for libel reform over the years have included EM Forster and HG Wells in the 1920s.

How does the law develop?

Laws are made by Parliament. Prior to the Government’s recent draft defamation bill, the last attempts by Parliament to reform the libel laws were through acts in 1952 and 1996. Laws also develop through the influence of past judgements in court: this is known as common law. Each judgement sets a precedence and in most areas of law, the influence of one ruling tends to be diluted by many other rulings. However, in libel law, few cases make it to trial and only three judges currently hear libel cases in England and Wales. This has meant relatively few opportunities for common law to develop, and a small number of rulings have had a disproportionately large influence on the shape of the law. As a result, problems with out-of-date laws endure.

Why are our libel laws so problematic?

Libel laws are complicated and unpredictable

There are several defences that can be used in a libel action. These are complicated, and some have developed through common law and some are set out in legislation. There is often great uncertainty about how a case will progress, and which defences will be allowed. Preliminary arguments just about this can last several years and cost thousands of pounds, even before a trial starts.

Defences available in libel actions2

Justification: a defendant must show that the substance and fact of what they have written is true. However, a judge decides what the words meant, and therefore what a defendant must prove to be true – sometimes not what a defendant expects.

Fair comment: a defendant must show that their writing was an expression of opinion based on facts, made without malice or disregard for the truth.

Privilege: Under certain situations, communications are protected from libel actions to allow people the confidence to speak without restraint. Absolute privilege protects, for example, MPs speaking in Parliament and people speaking in a court of law. Qualified privilege covers exchanges “for the common convenience and welfare of society”, and includes employment references, banking enquiries and confessions to a priest.

The Reynolds Defence: a form of qualified privilege, developed through common law to protect responsible journalism. The defence is meant to allow the reporting of facts which are uncertain, but whose reporting is in the public interest. However, this defence is notoriously difficult to use successfully, and contains what has been interpreted as a ‘check list’ to show responsible journalism. Required steps include contacting the other party to ask for their side of the story, and being able to demonstrate steps taken to verify a story.3

Laws are biased towards the claimant

Libel cases are easy to bring, but difficult to defend. Claimants do not need to show that what has been communicated is false or damaging for a case to proceed; instead the burden of proof rests with the defendant to show their words are defensible. Because libel cases are extremely costly and defences are uncertain, the majority of those threatened with a libel suit will back down rather than try to defend their words, meaning cases rarely reach court.

*Solicitors estimate that 90% of libel cases in England and Wales are won by the claimant4.

*Of 154 libel proceedings identified in Justice Jackson’s 2010 review of costs in civil litigation, none were won by the defendants.5

*The number of libel proceedings involving media companies where cases were settled by a statement in open court, instead of parties following a case through to its end in court, rose from 21% in 2004 to 61% in 2008.6

CASE STUDY7,8,9: Simon Singh is a science writer who was sued for libel in 2008 after criticising claims made by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) that chiropractic could be used to cure childhood conditions such as colic and asthma. Instead of engaging in open scientific debate, the BCA sued Simon personally for libel. The case lasted over two years and cost Singh an estimated £70,000 to defend; even though it never reached a proper trial, lengthy preliminary arguments were fought over meaning.

Costs are high

Damages awarded in libel cases are capped at £200,0005. However costs incurred in a libel trial can be extremely high and the losing party is required to pay the winner’s costs as well as their own. This means that individuals and organisations can face bankruptcy if they take on and lose a libel action10, 11. So why are costs in libel trials so high?

*Complicated libel laws mean cases are rarely resolved quickly, ratcheting up costs.

*Libel trials are heard in London before the High Court, and need specialist lawyers. City legal rates are extremely high in comparison to rates in a county court.

*In cases fought under ‘no win no fee’ Conditional Fee Arrangements (CFAs), lawyers of the winning party can charge what are known as ‘Success Fees’ and up to double their fees.

Research by Oxford University has shown that libel cases in England and Wales are 140 times more expensive than their counterparts in Europe10 and costs can run into the millions. The 2010 Jackson Review5 identified that the average cost for the twenty most expensive trials was over £750,000, whilst the most expensive libel action in England and Wales cost in excess of three million pounds.

Even if a defendant wins their case they are unlikely to recover all their costs – let alone compensation for loss of time and earnings. It is hardly surprising that many threatened with libel are unwilling to take on the huge risks involved.

CASE STUDY6,9: Science journalist Ben Goldacre was sued for libel in 2007 along with the Guardian, over an article in which he criticised the activities of vitamin pill salesman Matthias Rath. Rath was promoting vitamin pills as a cure for AIDS in South Africa and denouncing conventional therapies as toxic and harmful. Although Rath eventually dropped his libel suit, the case cost the Guardian £535,000 to defend and lasted 19 months. Only £365,000 of this was ever recovered from Rath which meant that for Goldacre and the Guardian, the cost of winning was £170,000: only slightly less than the cost of the average house!

Libel laws are out of date

The internet has irreversibly changed the way we access and publish information, but with parliament last modifying our libel laws in 1996 and our current definition of a publication dating from 1848, development of the libel laws has not kept up. It may be clear to us that an investigative report in a newspaper and anonymous comments on a blog are very different in nature, but under current libel laws, both are held to the same conditions. Website hosts and internet service providers are forced to assume editorial responsibilities in the same manner as traditional outlets such as newspapers and magazines.

A ruling made in 1848 states that libel suits can be brought for a year after material is published. However, when it comes to online writing, each click on an article or download of a webpage is defined as a new publication. This means that all online writing remains potentially liable as long as it is accessible. Newspapers and journals are forced to consider the libel laws when making their archives available online, as they are technically re-publishing material. As a result, many editors leave gaps in their archives where material is controversial.

Libel tourism is chilling voices worldwide

The claimant-friendly nature of our libel laws means that foreign claimants are encouraged to try to take their cases here. A wide jurisdiction means that claimants can initiate cases on the weakest of grounds and over a quarter of High Court libel cases from 2005-2009 had some form of foreign involvement13.In 2010 the US Congress passed the SPEECH Act to ‘protect citizens against foreign libel rulings contrary to US constitution and laws’14. This followed a number of libel cases against American writers, including a New York based author who was sued by a Saudi businessman in London, even though only 23 copies of her book were sold in the UK.7

CASE STUDY7: In 2007, Ukrainian businessman Rinat Akhmetov brought a libel suit in the UK against an internet news site Obozrevatel, over articles published about his younger years. The site is based in the Ukraine and publishes in Ukranian and has a very small readership in the UK. Akhmetov was awarded damages of £50,000 and costs. That same year, Akhmetov also sued the Kyiv Post, an Ukranian paper with around 100 UK subscribers, over allegations of corruption. The newspaper apologised as part of an undisclosed settlement in 2008. In 2010, the Kyiv Post blocked access to all web traffic originating from the UK in protest against the English libel laws.

What next?

We continue to be surprised by the number of people who experience libel threats, and last year, we put together a guide to libel for online writers and communities: So you’ve had a threatening letter. What can you do? The Government published their draft defamation bill in March 2011 and this is currently undergoing scrutiny. You can see all the latest news from the Libel Reform Campaign here as we work with groups and people affected by the laws to make sure reforms introduced in the final bill address the current problems and protect open discussions and debate.

Bibliography and further reading:

1 Libel Reform, 190 years overdue, Robert Sharp, Liberal Conspiracy, 2011

2 A Rough Guide To English Defamation Law, Robert J Dougans, 2010

3 Judgments - Jameel and others (Respondents) v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (Appellants), 11 October 2006, Paragraph 56

4 Through the looking glass, Floyd Abrams, Index on Censorship, June 15 2009

5 Civil litigation costs review, Lord Justice Jackson, January 14 2010

6 Defamation cases increase by a third, Issued on behalf of Sweet & Maxwell by Mattison Public Relations, July 2009

7 Free Speech Is Not For Sale – the impact of English libel law on freedom of expression, English PEN and Index on Censorship, November 10 2009

8 On libel, the really big battle awaits, Simon Singh, The Guardian, April 19 2010

9 Simon Singh and the silencing of the scientists, Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, February 25 2010

10 Comparative Study of Costs of Defamation Proceedings Across Europe, University of Oxford, December 2008

11 Will British libel law kill net free speech? Emily MacManus, Open Democracy, March 27 2009

12 Government to cap legal bills in libel cases, Frances Gibbs, The Times, February 24 2009

13 Research carried out by the Libel Reform Campaign, February 2010

14 H.R. 2765: Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Ben Carson, M.D. on the Issues


Source: https://www.bencarson.com/issues

5 Principles to Restore American Exceptionalism in Our Schools

To be successful, we must take the federal bureaucracy out of education and concentrate on empowering the American people

Diagnosis: The American education system is failing our children.

In a 2012 study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States was ranked 27th out of 34 countries in mathematics.

The 2015 Math and Reading National Assessment of Educational Progress scores showed a continuation of the achievement gap between white and minority students, even after the implementation of Common Core Standards in 42 states and the District of Columbia.

Watch Dr. Ben Carson talk about the power of education.

Prognosis: Without change, our children will not be prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.

Today, American students face immense challenges and impediments in their path to success.

From increased U.S. Department of Education control to the skyrocketing costs of obtaining a college degree, students have never had more obstacles in their path to achievement.


Treatment Plan: Five Principles to Restore American Exceptionalism in Our Schools

School Choice: I will actively support school choice programs, such as school vouchers and charter schools, so every student has the opportunity to fully realize his or her God-given potential.

Empower Parents, Teachers, Local School Districts and the States – Not Washington: In education, as in so many endeavors, the best decisions are the ones made by those closest to the issue. I will work to directly support students, cut red tape and reduce the size and authority of the Washington educational bureaucracy.

Encourage Innovation: Everywhere I travel, I am inspired by the creativity of educators whose ideas offer real promise for tomorrow’s students. Rather than micromanaging these educational innovators with one-size-fits-all regulations that suppress their ingenuity, we should promote innovative ideas in education.

Reward Good Teachers: It is long past the time to give teachers the respect and the resources they deserve. Instead of an outdated system that rewards teacher tenure over performance, I will advocate for flexible block grants to the states to advance and reward teacher quality, and to develop teacher evaluation systems that focus on effectiveness in advancing student achievement.

A Simpler, Streamlined Student Loan Process: The Department of Education needs to get out of the lending business. We need a simpler, more streamlined and transparent financial aid process that gives students and their families the kind of simple, reliable information they need to make good decisions.

My Pledge

To be successful, we must take the federal bureaucracy out of education and concentrate on empowering the American people. This is the only way that “We the People” can have the kind of nation that was envisioned by our founders.

We owe it to our children – and to ourselves – to restore our education system to global preeminence, and I believe this common sense, conservative, principled approach will enable us to do so.

Health Care

Health Care

We Must Repeal and Replace Obamacare

Empower Americans to Ensure Access to High-Quality Care at Lower Cost

Diagnosis: Patients and Their Doctors Have Lost Control

A lifetime in medicine taught me that the best health care decisions are made between patient and doctor. As decision-making moves further away from patients and providers, the medical outcomes become less effective.

Obamacare has upended the patient-doctor relationship, restricting our health care options and access to doctors and specialists. As a result, patients face exorbitant increases in premiums, deductibles and co-pays, less access to the doctors they trust and fewer health care plans to choose from.


Prognosis: Spiraling Costs, Fewer Doctors and Choices

Dr. Carson directed pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for 29 years.

Without immediate change Americans will face:

Fewer choices — Already, 5 million Americans have been kicked off the private health care plans they depended on, with 21 percent fewer health plan options than before Obamacare.

Fewer doctorsEven now, specialists essential to diagnosing and treating stroke (America’s 5th leading killer) are in severe shortage under the Obamacare insurance plans.

Broken promises under Medicare & Medicaid — Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries face a two-tieredhealth care system, as many doctors can no longer afford to participate; meanwhile, both programs are unsustainable.

Treatment Plan: Repeal Obamacare and Put “We the People” in Charge

Health Empowerment Accounts to put patients in charge, with more choices at lower cost:

  • First-dollar coverage for out-of-pocket expenses and premiums to buy the insurance of your choice.
  • Your Money. Your Account belongs to you, whether you change jobs or cross state lines.
  • Transferable between family members, because each of us has different medical needs.

Save Medicare and Medicaid by putting beneficiaries in control:

  • Give Medicare beneficiaries a fixed contribution to buy the health insurance they actually want and need.
  • Give Medicare and Medicaid enrollees HEAs to cover first-dollar expenses and insurance premiums for coverage they get to choose
  • Modernize Medicare to keep pace with medical advances by gradually increasing the eligibility age (by 2 months each year) until it reaches age 70.
  • Treat Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries like the rest of us. Give Medicaid beneficiaries the same insurance coverage, doctors and choices that other Americans enjoy, with HEAs to provide first-dollar coverage, supplemented by a major medical insurance plan of the patient’s choice.
  • Save Medicaid by providing fixed-dollar support to the states, which must use the funds for premium payments and HEAs for beneficiaries — not wasteful state bureaucracies.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore On Issues The United States Is Facing Today


Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/

Veterans have sacrificed to ensure our nation’s security.

Many of our finest soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen have been wounded in the wars our nation has had to fight. Many more will be in the fights necessary to defeat the terrorist networks and other enemies.

More about this Issue

Preserving our Second Amendment Rights

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/preserving-our-second-amendment-rights/

“Every state and the District of Columbia will be required to honor the concealed carry permits issued by every other state and DC. There will never be an assault weapons ban during my presidency. As the Constitution says, our Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed.”

I am committed to the individual right to keep and bear arms by every American who has not forfeited that right by criminal conviction or other action. The right own, carry and keep a gun is under relentless attack and pressure. As President I will be committed to standing up for our rights under the Second Amendment.

There is far too much violent crime in America. But that fact does not arise from the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

The real reasons for violent crime – especially crimes in which guns are used – is that it’s easier for politicians to huff and puff about the need for more gun control rather than deal with the real problems. You can see that in cities such as Baltimore and New York where the mayors scorn the police and don’t want to face the facts that are causing their people to suffer from so much crime.

We know what the real problems are: the need for easier involuntary commitment of the dangerous mentally ill, the dangers brought about by Obama’s open borders policy and surer appropriate punishment of criminals.

I know these are the real issues because I am a member of the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors. I have defended Americans’ Second Amendment rights throughout my career and will continue to do so because the Second Amendment is just as important as any of the other rights preserved for us by the Constitution.

Every tragedy such as the Newtown school massacre, the killings in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater and the mass murders at Virginia Tech have one thing in common. They were all perpetrated by people who were mentally ill and dangerous to everyone around them. That problem isn’t going to be solved by gun control and background checks.

For decades, the states have made it harder and harder to involuntarily commit the dangerous mentally ill. Psychiatrists and psychologists owe it to our society to devise effective tests, and states need to adopt better laws, to ensure that to the greatest extent possible the dangerous mentally ill can be identified and involuntarily committed for however long they remain a danger.

We need to do a lot more to protect our children in schools. Not every teacher should be required to be armed, but those who choose to be should be specially trained with Tasers and firearms. We need to put ballistic-resistant doors and locks on classrooms and protect first-floor windows with ballistic glass. Teachers need to have the training and means to save children’s lives until police arrive to deal with a shooter.

Gun-free zones serve only to tell potential murderers and terrorists where their most vulnerable victims can be found. We need to arm our off-base military, all of whom are terrorist targets. Failing to do so is irresponsible and puts our troops at risk.

Gun control advocates need to face the fact that their efforts will hurt far more than they help. And our minority community should realize that, as Justice Scalia’s brilliant opinion in DC v Heller showed, the American gun control movement began in post-Civil War years when southern states chose to prevent blacks from owning firearms. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

Gun control is not the answer to our society’s problems. Effective methods of institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill, protecting our school children and ensuring the enforcement of our laws to imprison criminals and protect our borders are the answer.

 

Winning the War

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/winning-the-war/

We need to win the war the terrorists and terrorist nations are waging against us. The only way to do that is to defeat them not only on the battlefield but by defeating the ideology of radical Islam at the same time. My experiences – as governor of a state attacked on 9-11, as a counterintelligence agent in the Cold War – give me the necessary skills to lead America forward to victory.

We are fighting the longest war in America’s history. It is being waged against us by the terrorist networks and the nations that sponsor them such as Iran.

This war has been going on at least since the 1979 seizure of American diplomats in Tehran, Iran. It has continued through many other attacks, including the 1982 bombing of the Marines’ barracks in Beirut, Lebanon by the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah terrorists and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Virginia and the airliner that crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

It is a cliché to say that we cannot kill our way out of this war. That statement is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. We must – and as president I will – apply the weapons of war necessary to win any fight. But we also have to win another fight: the ideological war no other candidate apparently understands.

Radical Islam is an ideology to the same extent that Islam is a religion. Radical Islam is an integrated system of beliefs and religious laws upon which a form of government is intended to be based. It’s not like American conservatism or liberalism, but it is very much like Communism, Nazism and Shintoism, ideologies we have defeated in the past.

Like the Nazis, the radical Islamists play on the sense of persecution and cultural inferiority that many people in underdeveloped nations have because they are truly oppressed. And, like the Nazis, the Islamists have convinced their followers that the problems of their world are the fault of others. The Islamists blame every ill of their world on America, the West, the Jews and Israel.

Like the Soviets, the Islamists believe that their enslavement of the world is inevitable (though, unlike the Soviets, they believe it is God’s will that they must succeed). Radical Islam’s adherents, like the Nazis and the Communists before them, believe their victory is both inevitable and irreversible. That is a powerful ideology which we have yet to engage with the necessary weapons.

Our military – comprised of many of the best people our country has ever produced – is winning every fight it enters. But it can’t win the war only by bombing and shooting. Our politicians have to do their share by fighting the ideological war.

When he first became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 2005, Marine Gen. Peter Pace demonstrated that he understood this better than any of our politicians. In his “guidance” to the Joint Staff, published soon after he took the job, Pace said, “Our enemies are violent extremists who would deny us, and all mankind, the freedom to choose our own destiny. Finding this distributed, loosely networked enemy is the greatest challenge we face. We must find and defeat them in an environment where information, perception, and how and what we communicate are every bit as critical as the application of traditional kinetic effects.”

Pace was precisely correct. What we say and write is just as important in this war as how well we shoot. Unless and until we defeat the ideology of radical Islam we cannot defeat the terrorists who use it to propel their war. We cannot win the kinetic war without winning the ideological war.

So how do we do it?

There are two predicates to winning the war against terrorism and the nations that sponsor it.

First, we must have the strong presidential leadership that can lift up the American people and bring them to understand that in this longest war the enemy will have some successes, even in future terrorist attacks on our homeland. But instead of living in fear of such attacks, we can – and I promise to do – whatever is necessary to produce a victory over the terrorist networks and the nations that sponsor them.
I know how to do this. My experiences as governor when the Pentagon was attacked on 9-11, as Chairman of the congressionally-mandated Advisory Panel on Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction and as a counter-intelligence agent during the Cold War give me the skills to accomplish that, skills none of my opponents have.

Second, we must strengthen our intelligence capabilities – not only satellites but intelligence agents in hostile nations – who can provide the information essential to interdicting and deterring attacks on Americans at home and abroad. We should invest in new intelligence technologies in order to attain and maintain the upper hand against all our adversaries but especially against the natural advantage terrorists have in their ability to hide among otherwise peaceful people.

In doing that, we have to maintain our free society and not give carte blanch to domestic intelligence activities. Intelligence must be established to adequately protect us from terrorists who come across our borders and home-grown terrorists as well. But it must be limited by our laws and subjected to strict oversight.

In order to win this war we have to understand the grip radical Islam has on too many people in too many nations. It is the reason President Bush’s nation-building had to fail in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have to look for, and encourage, those moderate Muslim leaders who want to reform their religion to reject the Radical Islamists’ ideology.

I was encouraged by the January 1 speech by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In that speech, al-Sisi called radical Islam to account. His central theme was the insanity of Islam trying to set itself apart from – and to conquer – the rest of the world. His words flew in the face of all the terrorist network leaders saying, “It is inconceivable that the wrong ideas that we sacralize (sic) should make the entire umma [Muslim community] a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction for the whole world. This is not possible.”

Al-Sisi thus condemned not Islam itself, but those who say that Islam’s sacred texts should be read to demand that it dominate the entire world, to set itself at war with all other religions.

We cannot embrace al-Sisi because of his oppressive domestic policies but we can work with him to change those policies and to encourage his ideological fight. We can, and must, seek to encourage other Muslim leaders at home and abroad to follow his example. Those Muslim leaders, including those in the United States, who want to resist the radical Islamists’ ideology must be encouraged to do so and helped as much as a non-Muslim nation can.

In a highly significant speech on July 20th of this year, British Prime Minister David Cameron described why this war is an ideological one and outlining his policies on how to fight it.

Cameron first stated the obvious: that radical Islam, the Islam of the terrorists, is an extremist doctrine and, he said, an ideology that is subversive to Western democracies. He said that the ideology is based on a sort of paranoia. It’s based on conspiracy theories that are a warped view of the world, such as Jews exercise malevolent power in the West seeking to destroy Islam, that 9-11 was inspired by Mossad to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and that the terrorist attacks on London’s buses and subways were tolerated by the British security services to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash.

Cameron’s words are worth quoting because they outline the policies I will adapt to guide America and win the ideological war:

First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and yes, the so-called glamorous parts of it as well.
In doing so, let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own…values. We should expose their extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.
We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together.

Cameron’s words are a guideline that all Western democracies should use to defend their laws, their cultures and to insist on the obvious fact that they are superior in every way to the ideology of Radical Islam. That is the path to victory in this long war.

There can never be any doubt that America will stand for its Constitutional system of government. I will defend the Constitution, as every president must, against all its enemies. Together, we can defeat the ideology of radical Islam and terrorist networks to whatever degree may be necessary to make them understand they have been defeated.

 

Foreign Policy and America’s Role in the World

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/foreign-policy-and-americas-role-in-the-world/

America must always be a force for freedom. To that end, I will take specific actions directed at correcting the many mistakes President Obama has made. Because of those mistakes, we are no longer trusted by our allies or respected by our enemies. Throughout my presidency America will keep its word to ally and adversary alike. We need to reject the Iran nuclear deal, stop drawing red lines we don’t mean to enforce and deny the UN the power to control our actions. In my presidency, we will be fully engaged and leading from a position of strength. That’s a real formula for peace through strength.

From World War II until President Obama took office, America was the respected and trusted leader of the free world. We stood up to the threat of Soviet communism and defeated it. When the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989, there began a new birth of freedom in Europe and many other regions. But even before that, the rise of radical Islam began to enslave many peoples, an enormous threat to freedom that continues to rise because Obama refuses to deal with it.

President Obama believes that a weaker America makes the world safer and that we are have no greater place in the world than any of the UN’s other members. That’s flat wrong. America offers the freedoms, preserved by our Constitution, that ensure life, liberty and the ability to prosper. Our moral, religious and Constitutional systems make us superior to the many nations that don’t offer those freedoms.

Call it what you will, American exceptionalism is a fact, and that makes our place in the world what it has always been. America is a force for freedom, an untiring voice against oppression and slavery, and a stabilizing force. We have the right and the duty to defend ourselves and our allies. To do so we must act – diplomatically, economically and when necessary militarily — from a position of global strength.

I will recreate America’s foreign policy on that basis. I will guide our foreign policy with the understanding that both the neocons and the isolationists are wrong. The neocons are too willing to go to war to reshape the world. On the other hand, the isolationists refuse to recognize threats to our vital national security interests that have to be deterred or defeated. Their weakness only encourages aggression.

We should never engage in nation-building or fight indecisive wars. War is always a last resort. But there are some acts of aggression that have to be defeated. As we learned in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, if you do not fight a war in a manner calculated to win it decisively, you will lose inevitably.

We must engage constructively with our allies and with our adversaries to our mutual benefit. We should never draw “red lines” against an adversary’s action unless we mean to enforce them. I will not sacrifice America’s credibility to phony “red lines,” nor will I allow the United Nations to control any aspect of our foreign policy as Obama has done in his dangerous Iran deal.

We cannot rely on the United Nations to produce a diplomatic resolution to any significant problem. I will conduct American foreign policy in America’s interests with the objective, always, of keeping the peace. But our diplomacy will be conducted in a manner that uses all of our national assets – diplomatic, economic and military – to best advantage.

As the Obama foreign policy has proved time and again, weakness is provocative. We must always retain the option of acting unilaterally, but we should prefer to function internationally through real alliances with dedicated allies both new and old. Our diplomatic adversaries will quickly learn the difference between our vetoing a UN resolution and our sending an aircraft carrier battle group. We will neither demonstrate weakness nor provoke aggression. And, at all times, I will ensure that we have the ability to deter or defeat any significant threat.

I will recreate America’s foreign policy in accordance with those specific principles.

When Obama and Hillary Clinton began implementing his “transformational” foreign policy they began a process that has, intentionally in accordance with his plan, forfeited America’s influence and power. Obama has done this by shunning our allies and embracing our enemies. He has broken other presidents’ commitments to allies, such as President Bush’s promise of a ground-based missile defense system in Poland to protect Europe. And he has engaged in extremely unwise agreements, such as the new Iran nuclear weapons deal, which place our allies in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, under the intolerable threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

One measure of the great harm Mr. Obama has done is the number of nations that used to depend on us to guide their foreign policies and now reject our leadership. NATO is adrift. Saudi Arabia, among others in the Middle East, has made it clear that it will no longer follow America’s policy lead. Many other nations are going their own ways because we are not trusted. We must correct that and again make our nation the trusted and respected leader it was for so long.

Our next president will bear the heavy burden of repairing the damage Obama has done. America needs to again be a force for freedom and stability in the world. To do that, we first need to re-earn the trust of our allies and re-earn the respect of our enemies. If we are going to re-earn that trust we must do it in a way that respects our allies.

Some of the other candidates apparently believe we can just say America will resume its leadership to have it happen. That’s wrong. Our allies have to grant their trust based upon concrete actions.

To re-earn our allies trust – and our adversaries’ respect — we need to take foreign policy actions aimed specifically to correct Obama’s mistakes. The biggest example is the Iran nuclear arms deal which I will revoke if elected.

I will create a new Middle Eastern alliance along the lines of NATO. The Arab states, usually our allies, can be convinced that our foreign policy can be trusted as a guide to theirs. The Arab nations already understand that their common enemy is Iran, not Israel. A cornerstone of the new treaty will be that Israel will be a member of the alliance and share in the obligation to defend against Iranian aggression.

That is a plan from which we can derive the specifics of national defense and foreign policy. It is a plan to achieve peace through strength and responsible, constructive engagement with the world.

 

Immigration and Border Enforcement

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/immigration-and-border-enforcement/

The first thing I am going to do is get every illegal immigrant who is a criminal, like the man who allegedly shot down Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, off our streets. I will – quickly – secure our borders and end the ability of cities to declare themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens. And I will insist that the only path to citizenship for illegals currently in our nation is a path back across the border. No one who comes to this country illegally should become a citizen. Those who come legally should be able to follow the path that has been taken by millions of other legal immigrants who have come to our country and become citizens.

A nation that doesn’t enforce its own borders cannot claim to be a nation. America is a nation of laws but President Obama has refused to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. In disregard of the Constitution he has refused to enforce many laws and has declared revisions to our immigration laws without congressional legislation to accomplish those changes. He has thus created an anarchy of open borders.

We are a nation of immigrants and should always welcome those who come here legally, who intend to become Americans, to join our culture and to help serve and protect our constitutional system of government.

But Obama’s open border policy has not only let too many illegal aliens into this nation, it has also refused to protect us against the violence that some bring with them. The murder of young Kathryn Steinle allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had seven prior felony convictions and was released to walk our streets, is a terrible lesson that Mr. Obama refuses to learn.

That lesson is perfectly clear. Our borders must be secured. That means people such as the alleged killer of Ms. Steinle – a man who had been deported several times — should never have been allowed to re-enter this country. When a person is deported, they should not – by negligence or lack of action – be permitted to re-enter our nation unless they apply successfully for legal entry.

Those are the first steps: secure our borders and not let anyone – far less known criminals — into our society. But our immigration system is broken. We need to reform it.

Reform doesn’t mean deporting all of the many millions who are here illegally. And it doesn’t mean that someone who came here illegally should ever be eligible for American citizenship. Reform also doesn’t mean that anyone who can get here should be entitled to remain. Amnesty – which has been defined to include a path to citizenship — is and will remain the wrong remedy.

Reform means that those who legally immigrate regardless of their racial or ethnic identity or their national origin should be welcomed. They should benefit from a system that works faster and more effectively. Those who entered illegally years ago – those who pay their taxes, who work hard to assimilate into our culture, who obey our laws and system of government and learn to speak our language – should be given the ability to work legally.

None of this can be done unless and until we secure our borders. Once that is done and our system of securing the borders has been proven to work we can proceed with these other necessary reforms.

 

Repairing America’s Defenses

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/americas-defenses/

America is in greater danger every day we continue down the path of weakness and retreat President Obama has followed. The threats our country faces are extreme and increasing. Thanks to Obama’s slashing of the defense budget, America’s military capabilities are in the worst shape they’ve been in 60 years. This isn’t just a matter of budgeting. I will restore a national strategy of peace through strength with specific plans and objectives to ensure America is worthy of our allies’ trust and our enemies’ respect. It will take time to solve the many problems Obama has created, but I will soon again to deter or defeat any nation or terrorist network that threatens our country.

President Obama’s wrong-headed policy has forfeited America’s influence in the world because of his core belief that America’s global standing needed to be reduced. He has created a situation in which America is no longer, as it had been since World War 2, the world’s foremost defender of freedom.

To put in simply, America is in great danger because of the policies Obama has pursued.

Natan Sharansky, one of the bravest survivors of the Soviet Union’s gulags, wrote last April in the Wall Street Journal that America has suffered a tragic loss of moral self-confidence. America, he said, has forgotten that it’s America. It is not just a lapse of collective memory. It is the necessary result of Obama’s intentional rejection of the principles that made America the most prominent force for freedom in the world, one which our most powerful enemies understood to be an immovable barrier to aggression.

We expect our military to defend America, help defend our allies and even provide disaster relief in remote corners of the world. Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are responsible for deterring and, if necessary, defeating any major threat to America. But we have no national defense and intelligence strategies to answer the key question: what do we expect our military to do, and what do they need to do it? Devising those strategies will be Job One when I am president.

What do we want America’s role in the world to be? To heed Sharansky’s admonition, we need to remember who we are and restore America to its role as a global power. We can – and must – be able to help bring stability to crucial regions of the world. We should not be the world’s policeman. But whenever a vital American national security interest is threatened or actually violated, we need to be able to deter or defeat that threat.
That doesn’t mean we would respond militarily to every situation or even to most. Only vital national security interests – not every interest everywhere – must be protected.

The threats to America are growing and outpacing defense and intelligence spending and planning. Yes, our military and intelligence capabilities must be restored and that will cost a lot of money. But to fix the problems Obama has created is not merely a question of budgeting. It’s a matter of devising an in-depth national security strategy.

That strategy, if I am elected, will be based on the rising dangers we have to face. Russia’s expansion into the Crimea and Ukraine as well as China’s growing domination of the South China Sea are only two of the threats that our best military minds will have to find solutions. Historically, we have been prepared to fight a two-front conflict. Now we are not only unprepared to fight more than one, we may not be able to fight and win any large conflict.

We face networks of terrorists including al-Qaida, ISIS and literally dozens of others with regional or global reach. Nations that sponsor terrorism, especially Iran – the most powerful sponsor of terrorism – need to be deprived of the capabilities that can endanger America. That is only one of the reasons I will revoke Obama’s Iran deal.

We need to deal with the broad threat of cyber attacks on our industry and government. It’s no exaggeration to say that the armed forces, intelligence community and defense and civilian industries suffer thousands of cyber attacks every day. Last March, Adm. Mike Rogers, commander of US Cyber Command, told congress that our efforts to deter cyber attacks aren’t working. We need an offensive cyber capability – and plans and strategies to use it – to deter and defeat these attacks.

It is only an in-depth understanding of these threats and definite plans to deal with them that can lead us to the proper budgeting for our armed services and intelligence community. We have to do better, and we can if we do some hard work and engage in the kind of serious thinking that hasn’t been done since 2008.

My experience equips me to lead these efforts and create the national defense and intelligence capabilities we will need in the near and more distant future. I know the intelligence world, having served as a counterintelligence agent during the Cold War. I was the Chairman of the congressionally-mandated Advisory Panel on Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (which came to be known as “The Gilmore Commission.”) I’ve come to understand many of our global problems – and the allies who can help us solve them – on missions to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Croatia and Israel. No other candidate can claim that range of experience.

From the top down, as a matter of national policy, we need to understand at a detailed level just what the Pentagon is going to be expected to do for the next five to ten years. Without the analytical basis provided by such a review, budgeteers are working in the dark. I would also conduct a “bottom-to-top” review of our intelligence capabilities to ensure that our intelligence agencies – also suffering Obama’s from neglect – have what they need to protect America.

This is a strategy that will ensure our ability to deter or defeat any major threat to the United States. By implementing it when I am president, we will again achieve peace through strength.

 

Restoring America’s Economy

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/restoring-americas-economy/

I am going to get America moving again and create jobs. I will cut taxes for all Americans, have three simple tax brackets, reduce business taxes to 15 percent and eliminate the death tax. The reason we are in this fix is because Obama has stifled our economy with Obamacare, excessive taxes, needless regulations and unconstitutional executive orders. I will get our economy going again so we can create full time jobs, increase wages and provide hope and opportunity to our citizens.

For most of the years since 1945, America’s economy has grown steadily resulting in a path to prosperity for a great number of us. It has, quite literally, been the most powerful engine of freedom in the world. When John Kennedy faced a period of economic doldrums, he took action that – after his death – resulted in economic growth of over 10% in 1965. Ronald Reagan, facing a similar problem, took similar action. He, too, brought our economy to average 10% growth in 1983-1984.

But the economic meltdown of 2008 saw our growth slow to a negative 1%.

Those growth percentages mean something to every American. They determine whether good full-time jobs are available. They determine whether families can afford homes, cars and college educations for their children. When the economy slows, jobs get scarce. When jobs are scarce, America’s path to prosperity – the American dream our parents always talked about – is blocked.

Since 2008, under President Obama’s economic policies, the only things that has grown in America is government spending and debt. His “stimulus plan” didn’t stimulate the economy. His Federal Reserve has kept inflation down by “quantitative easing,” a policy that artificially depresses interest rates by buying up government securities. His “jobless recovery” is an economic oxymoron, and all of his economic policies have only added obstacles to recovery.

In the first quarter of 2015, US economic growth was a paltry 0.6%. The second quarter results weren’t that much better: only 2.3%. Our economy should be growing at a rate three or four times as great.

Jobs are still scarce because America’s economy has still not recovered significantly. It’s stalled because Obama’s policies don’t allow it to recover. We have the highest business tax in the developed world. Regulations are strangling businesses and entrepreneurs face unnecessary risks. No wonder jobs are scarce. Businesses are faltering and growth is stymied.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly one-third of the entire population of the United States – about 100 million people – don’t have full-time jobs.

I have devised a plan called “The Growth Code to repair our economy. The Growth Code’s specifics are:

 

  • To simplify taxation on individuals and families those who continue to file their income taxes on the standard Form 1040 will be subject to a simplified progressive tax of 10, 15, or 25%. Deductions will be taxed in accordance with the “No Double Taxation” rule;
  • To unify all business taxation in the United States. All business income will be declared on the same tax form for each business. Taxes will be imposed at the rate of 15% for business-created income;
  • To allow for immediate first year expensing of business investments. An option should exist to allow expensing any credit against future years’ income if it can be shown that the income from the investment occurred after the end of the year in which it was made. Under current law, gradual depreciation schedules prolong recovery of the investment and prevents full recovery of the amount invested in the business for equipment or other assets;
  • To end double taxation on individuals and businesses which is an existing bias against investment. In the current system, profits, interest or other earned income from investment is taxed as ordinary income in addition to the business tax rate. Spending on consumption is now treated more advantageously than saving for investment. It is our contention that we should level the playing field so that consumption spending and saving for investment are treated the same.
  • To provide that profits earned abroad are repatriated to the U.S. tax free because those profits will already have been taxed once by the foreign country. Under this principle, dividends and capital gains will not be taxable to the person receiving the money, because it has already been taxed once at the corporate level.
  • To provide that deductions for mortgage payments will continue to be deductible for an individual. Also, The Growth Code does not propose to disturb the payroll tax which goes directly to fund entitlement programs. Charitable contributions will continue as deductions based on the recognition of the long-standing American belief that private citizens who desire to fund charity and provide services should be able to do so to relieve what would otherwise be the government’s burden.
  • To provide that every citizen will pay some form of tax, usually at the lowest 10% level under the simplified tax brackets. However, we recognize the need and desire to shield the very poor and families. With this in mind we propose to establish a Family Refundable Tax Credit (FRTC) of $4,300. Families earning less than the poverty level would receive this credit in the form of a check to supplement their income, reduced in the amount of their tax liability.

The Growth Code is not a collection of pie-in-the-sky theoretical remedies to our continued economic problems. These are the historically-proven policies that worked for Kennedy and Reagan.

When the Growth Code is enacted into law, the results will be a new turbocharged economy. Growth will recover quickly from its lows in the Obama years to exceed the historical average of 4% per year. Unemployment – real unemployment, which now ranges above 9% — will drop significantly because new good jobs will be created. Wages will go up due to job growth and the American dream will suddenly become achievable for millions of Americans now denied it.

Americans want jobs and deserve an economy that enables good, productive jobs to be found. Mr. Obama believes, as he once said, that if you have a successful business, you didn’t build that. Mrs. Clinton, as she has said, doesn’t believe people should listen to anyone who says businesses create jobs.

We know better. We have to get government out of the way so businesses can create jobs and America can prosper again.

 

Health Care Reform

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/health-care-reform/

I will repeal and replace Obamacare with a patient-oriented healthcare system. Obamacare has become an oppressive burden on our people and our economy. As a result of Obamacare, many Americans are now being force to work 29-hour weeks and have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Millions of others have had their insurance rates increased or their policies cancelled. This law is a principal reason that our economy is not recovering. It must not stand.

The first duty of every doctor and surgeon is to do no harm. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act – also known as “Obamacare” – has interfered with their ability to satisfy that oath and has crippled our healthcare system.

Obamacare interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, raises taxes on some things and creates new ones on others. And, most importantly, it has created such a burden on our economy that it has become one of the principal reasons the American economy remains stagnant.

More than fifty percent of Americans favor repeal of the law. They are right: it should be repealed for several big reasons.

First, Obamacare is keeping employers from hiring new employees in full-time jobs by redefining the work week. Instead of the normal workweek of 40 hours, Obamacare defines full time employees as any who work 30 hours a week or 130 hours a month.

As too many Americans have discovered for themselves, you can’t support yourself and your family on less than 30 hours’ wages a week. Employers who are or will be covered by the Obamacare employer mandate don’t want to hire full time employees because if you do you have to either help them pay for expansive Obamacare health insurance or pay a big penalty.

You have to get a second or even third job to make up for the loss Obamacare imposed. Too many Americans can’t find 40-hour a week jobs and Obamacare is the reason they can’t.

Almost as bad has been Obamacare’s effect on the price of healthcare insurance in America. Millions of people and their families have had their policies cancelled because of Obamacare. If they can buy replacement policies, those policies come at a much higher cost. Some states, such as Florida, have seen the price of healthcare insurance premiums rise from 30%-100%. Many states have experienced the same, and some have seen expenses rise even higher.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, Obamacare contains 20 new or raised taxes including a hike in Medicare payroll taxes, taxes on medical devices and innovative drug companies and many others. It’s a drag on our economy that penalizes research and development into medicines and revolutionary medical technologies that save lives.

There may be some things we want to save from Obamacare, such as the coverage of young people on their parents’ insurance policies until they are 26 years old and the necessity of covering people with pre-existing conditions. But those things can be added to the legislation that should replace Obamacare or through state legislation.

We need an approach to healthcare that is predicated on free-market incentives. With those incentives, we need to encourage businesses to provide better healthcare benefits to their employees. This has the double benefit of employees wanting to remain in good jobs and employers given greater ability to retain good employees.

There are good ways to reform the American healthcare system. I favor the approach taken by Cong. Tom Price (R-Ga) who has repeatedly introduced bills such as his “Empowering Patients First Act,” which he offered in June 2013.

Under Price’s bill, healthcare reforms include:

  1. Interstate sale of insurance;
  2. Promotion of Association Health Plans (AHPs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs);
  3. Income-adjusted, “advanceable,” and refundable health insurance premium credits;
  4. A tax deduction for income spent on health insurance for households ineligible for premium credits;
  5. Malpractice and provider antitrust reform.

Under this approach, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget would be reduced by over $1.7 trillion over ten years.

Obamacare is a burden our people and our economy shouldn’t have to bear. It should be repealed and replaced with the sensible reforms such as those in Price’s bill.

 

Climate Change

Source: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/issues-jim/climate-change/

Climate change is a reality. The question is why and what is the answer? The answer is not — as Obama has done — to take actions that cause utility bills to skyrocket for every American family and drive jobs out of the country so those same hard working Americans won’t be able to pay the higher utility bills. China and India will get those American jobs and they are doing nothing to help with climate change. The climate change problem cannot be solved by America alone.

Climate change is a reality, but the debate on whether it is caused by man – the anthropogenic climate change we hear about every day – is very far from over.

We should not agree to any treaties, congress should not enact any laws, and the administration should not issue any regulations that strangle our economy in pursuit of an ephemeral goal of reducing global carbon emissions. According to The Economist, America ranks between China – the world’s biggest emitter, which exceeds US emissions by about 50% — and India which emits about 50% of what America does. It makes no sense to agree to any global climate change treaty that doesn’t place equal burdens on those economies and those of Russia and Japan, which rank fourth and fifth according to the same source.

In 2009, President Obama proposed a “cap and trade” system which he admitted would cause the U.S. price of electricity to skyrocket. Fortunately, that plan never passed into law. But, as usual, Obama is going beyond his constitutional authority and implementing new regulations to force the same result by regulations on coal-fired generation plants.

By his new regulation, Obama is trying to force states and power companies to shift their investments to solar and wind power. We’ve seen that before and we know it doesn’t do anything other than burden our economy with false remedies. When government forces investment that the free market doesn’t reward, you get the results we’ve seen such as the failure of Solyndra. That cost the federal government more than half a billion dollars. The House Oversight Committee said in 2012 that the cost to American taxpayers of Solyndra’s failure could be as high as $849 million dollars.

America should not be driving industry to more costly failures like Solyndra and our taxpayers should not have to pay for them. Obama’s regulations should be revoked immediately.

We should all be conservationists. That means we will preserve and maintain our air and water quality, protect wildlife from extinction and thus help contribute to our quality of life. Making the cost of energy skyrocket will reduce our quality of life. That’s an unnecessary sacrifice to impose on Americans.

 

Securing Our Nation, Future & Values By South Carolina U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham



Source: http://www.lindseygraham.com/campaign-issues/

Secure Our Nation

Source: http://www.lindseygraham.com/secure-our-nation/

Prepared to be Commander in Chief on Day One

We need a president who is prepared to be Commander in Chief on Day One. Our nation faces grave threats at home and in every region of the globe. Radical Islam is on the rise, and authoritarian leaders in Russia and China perpetrate their aggressions with impunity. Our allies distrust us and our enemies have no reason to respect or fear us. We need a president who understands the complex threats we face, has a clear and coherent strategy for addressing them, and will restore strong American leadership as a stabilizing force that reduces the chaos and conflict that currently engulf so much of the world. As president, Lindsey Graham would ensure we have the capability, the capacity, and the will to preserve our security and our values at home and abroad.

Restore American Leadership

We must end the practice of capitulating to our adversaries, alienating our allies, and abandoning those who are confronting the naked aggressions of dictatorial regimes. The threats and chaos plaguing every corner of the globe demand comprehensive strategies, and the military might to back them up. Leading from behind or retreating into isolationism only allows global threats to grow and raises the costs in the long term of securing our nation. We need a return to presidential leadership on the world stage that ensures the protection of Americans.

Fully Fund and Support Our Military

Our ballooning national debt poses a serious threat to our national security, but failed attempts to address it by blindly and recklessly slashing military funding are equally dangerous. We must reverse President Obama’s disastrous military cuts that put our security and our troops at risk, and replace them with responsible, targeted cuts and meaningful reforms that reduce federal spending the smart way. Our military is the world's most elite fighting force, and we must maintain our global superiority while keeping faith with the men and women who serve in uniform.

Defeat Forces of Radical Islam

No other strain of terrorism today poses a greater threat to our homeland, our troops, or our interests around the globe. The forces of Radical Islam, such as ISIS, are bent on the destruction of our way of life. Under President Obama, they have been allowed to become large, rich, and entrenched. We need to make them small, poor, and on the run. This will require an expanded presence of 10,000 troops in the region as part of a well-defined strategy with partner nations. Only by taking the fight to the enemy will we ensure that this war is never fought in our homeland.

Prevent a Nuclear and Belligerent Iran

We must ensure – at all costs – that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon or has the ability to share nuclear weapon technology with violent extremists committed to killing Americans. Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has sworn to destroy the State of Israel, and it has spread violence and chaos throughout the entire region. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, a nuclear arms race would ensue in the Middle East that would pose a direct threat to the security of America and our allies.

Provide Unwavering Support for Israel

Israel is one of our staunchest allies and closest friends. It is also the only nation in the Middle East that shares our democratic values. We need a president who will promote, protect, and support our critical relationship. Our president must not view support for Israel as a burden, but as the bedrock of peace, stability, and security in the Middle East.

Secure Our Future

Source: http://www.lindseygraham.com/secure-our-future/

Prepared to be Commander in Chief on Day One

National security and economic security are inextricably linked. A strong, prosperous, growing economy enables our nation to project leadership worldwide and effectively address the range of security threats we face. By the same token, a strong national defense preserves our liberties and ensures that every American has the opportunity to achieve economic success and pursue a higher quality of life. These opportunities must extend to all Americans, not just to a privileged few. As president, Lindsey Graham would pursue the policies and provide the leadership to ensure a growing economy and middle class.

Restore Fiscal Discipline

Washington spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. We need to enact smart cuts and implement meaningful, systemic reforms of the entitlement programs that constitute the vast majority of our looming fiscal crisis. We need to simplify our tax code and expand our tax base. Lindsey Graham will end the practice of pushing the hard choices off to future generations.

Reform Entitlements

Within just a few short years, our entitlement programs face bankruptcy and trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that will cause our already ballooning debt to skyrocket and cripple our economy. Fixing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the linchpin to balancing future budgets and ensuring solvency for future generations. To do so, they must be reformed and modernized so that our seniors are protected, our critically important safety net is preserved, and our long-term fiscal outlook is secured.

Achieve Energy Independence

America should run on American energy. We cannot afford to exclude any source of energy here at home, from shale to nuclear to clean coal to renewables. We must build the Keystone pipeline and increase oil and gas exploration in the U.S., and do so in a way that protects the air we breathe and the water we drink. This is a vitally important matter of economic security and job creation, but it also has significant implications for national security. Every new domestic energy source we utilize reduces our dependence on oil from rogue regimes.

Ease Tax and Regulatory Burdens

Families and businesses should no longer suffer the consequences of a complex, burdensome tax and regulatory regime that stifles growth and innovation, and prevents Americans from reaping the full benefits of their hard work. Making our tax code simpler and fairer will unleash the economic power of American ingenuity and restore opportunity for working families at every rung of the economic ladder.

Secure the Border and Fix Illegal Immigration

The flow of illegal immigration across our borders is a threat to both our economic and national security. We need a comprehensive plan to address this problem and it starts with securing our border. On the economic front, American workers, who are forced to pay taxes, are being cheated by illegal immigrants paid under the table. We should require illegal immigrants to register with the government to ensure they are paying taxes, learning English, undergoing background checks, and paying restitution for entering our nation illegally. Then, after living under our laws and our rules, we should require they wait for citizenship behind legal immigrants already in line. Finally, after going through this lengthy process -- including paying fines, paying taxes, learning English, and passing an American civics and assimilation exam -- which should take a decade or longer, an illegal immigrant could become a citizen, rather than remaining in the shadows and outside the arm of the law. Most important, we need presidential leadership on this issue to build consensus and craft solutions through constitutional means, not executive fiat.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare

Obama's radical policy to remake our healthcare system has left countless Americans shut out of their preferred plans with their preferred doctors, paying higher premiums and deductibles, and working fewer hours. We need to repeal and replace this deeply flawed program with real reforms that will improve access to quality, affordable care for all Americans.

Making Washington Work

The president represents our entire country, not just a single party. We need a leader who is firmly grounded in conservative principles. But our president must also recognize we have two parties, as well as a large number of those who belong to neither. Getting the important work done requires reaching out to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. True leadership is the ability to bring Americans of all stripes together to forge a path forward that makes our nation stronger, more secure, and more prosperous.

Secure Our Values

Source: http://www.lindseygraham.com/secure-our-values/

Prepared to be Commander in Chief on Day One

America was built upon the fundamental notions that life and liberty are sacred and inalienable rights. Our limited, constitutional government was designed to protect these rights. We need a president who will uphold the sanctity of life, defend our right to keep and bear arms, and preserve the liberties and traditional values upon which this country was founded. As president, Lindsey Graham will vigorously defend these core values and ensure that America remains a shining city on a hill.

Protect the Sanctity of Life

There is no part of society more vulnerable and in need of our protection than the unborn. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human being is an essential element of a civil society. From authoring the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to co-sponsoring the Partial Birth Abortion ban, Lindsey Graham has a long history of leadership on pro-life legislation. The Graham 20-Week Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is the most important federal pro-life effort today. This essential legislation, authored and sponsored by Lindsey Graham, bans abortions at 20 weeks, when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. It represents a critical step toward reaffirming the sanctity of life and preserving the basic constitutional rights of the most vulnerable. We need a president who always has, and always will, fight for the rights of the unborn.

Preserve Traditional Marriage and Protect Religious Freedom

Strong families are the core of a strong America. Traditional marriage as a union between a man and a woman has been the bedrock of human civilization for thousands of years. It is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship can. We must tirelessly support families, traditional values, and religious freedom against efforts to diminish and undermine them. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, making the need to protect the right of every American to freely exercise sincerely held religious beliefs all the more urgent. We need a president who will staunchly defend these liberties and devote the necessary federal resources to ensure that no one's First Amendment right to freedom of religion is infringed.

Protect Religious Freedom Globally

People of faith are under attack around the globe. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are being subjected to barbaric acts by radical Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and North Africa, while others face persecution in China, Pakistan, Sudan, and beyond. America must lead the charge in defending religious freedom and protecting people of faith from violent persecution throughout the world.

Defend Second Amendment Rights

As a lifelong gun owner, Lindsey Graham understands the importance of protecting the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is one of our sacred constitutional freedoms. We need a president who will vigilantly defend the rights of law-abiding citizens against the constant attacks of those who want to infringe on the Second Amendment and flagrantly disregard our constitutional freedoms.

Uphold Conservative Values in Education

Education is best handled by parents, teachers, and local communities, not Washington bureaucrats. The U.S. Department of Education has grown too large, and its bureaucratic reach goes far beyond its mission. Any coercive efforts by Washington to impose Common Core standards on state and local school districts must be resisted. Parental rights in education are of the utmost importance. Those who choose to seek a better school or to homeschool their children must be allowed to make choices that are best for their families.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Hard Truth About European Style Socialism and “Free” Stuff By Brittany Soares

Source: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/uncategorized/hard-truth-about-european-style-socialism-and-free-stuff
June 5, 2014


Sierra Marlee via The Examiner reports what life in socialist Europe is really like:

Americans are talking about the pros and cons of a Socialist society fueled by the extreme economic views of many Democratic Presidential candidates. Very few people, however, have actually lived under the system they are advocating for or against. So what does someone who has the experience of living under Socialism think?

Robert Moon wrote an article for The Examiner in which he goes into excruciating detail of life under the Socialism that so many Americans idolize.

After spending years living in socialist Germany and exploring all over Europe, what is striking is that, even in one of the wealthiest non-U.S. places on Earth, it is all about learning to do without.


Let’s examine the facts:

-There is a crushing 20% sales tax on everything. There is also a TV tax, a radio tax, a dog tax, a death tax of up to 50%, and every other kind of tax you could possibly imagine…for a grand total of about 60-65% of your income (unless you have already been brutalized into poverty by this system, in which case you get welfare).

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” –Ronald Reagan

-There is no such thing as Central Air…people just suffer through the heat, and freeze in the Winter with these dinky little radiator-heaters (which is all most people can afford, due to staggering government utility costs).

-Gasoline is usually $7-10 per gallon (about 1.50 Euros per liter as I write this), due to the government’s insanely aggressive taxes on fuel.

-People usually cannot afford 15 or even 30-year mortgages…they often must get 50-year mortgages to purchase a home (government makes housing astronomically expensive).

-Consumers are 100% disregarded, given total crap for options, and complaints over terrible service are completely ignored.

-It takes six hours to do half a load of laundry (government forces people to use these tiny, ‘environmentally-friendly’ laundry machines).

-Showers are the size of phone booths, water heaters are often woefully inadequate, and all water services cost an absolute fortune.

-Closets do not exist. The only thing you can do to store and organize your clothing is to purchase a huge, bulky piece of furniture called a “wardrobe” for every bedroom, which leaves you with very little actual living space in the already incredibly tiny homes Europeans must deal with.

-You can’t wash your own car in your own driveway. That might hurt the environment, so you must take your vehicle to a government-approved car wash and wildly overpay someone else to do it for you.

-Even the “big,” “Americanized” trash bins hold no more than a wastebasket of garbage…for two weeks of waste (no matter how many people live in your home). If the can is overflowing, they will not take your garbage, and every single item is required by law to be organized into separate color-coded recycling bags.

-You cannot even name your own child without government approval. There is literally an agency you must register with upon giving birth that decides whether or not your child’s name is acceptable to the government.

-Gun rights do not exist. The only way to get access to any firearms whatsoever is through a jaw-droppingly extreme permit/licensing process that involves taking elaborate tests, paying fees, and proving to the government you have a “legitimate” reason for wanting a gun (hunting, target shooting, etc.).

And even if you do manage to jump through all the hoops required to get a gun, you can still only keep it if you regularly verify to the government that you are actively using it for the purpose you listed, or it will be confiscated.

-Hunting and fishing also require an insane process of government-mandated training, tests, fees, licenses, permits and endless other restrictions.
-Having extreme views is illegal. Being a Neo-Nazi is a crime, as is questioning the Holocaust, or anything that could possibly be construed as “hate speech” by the left. Flipping someone off is also a criminal offense.

-It costs thousands of dollars to get a license, own a car, and pay for the more than $1 million of auto insurance you are forced to carry…and there are speed cameras everywhere, and there is no gray area (my boss couldn’t even get out of a ticket from when he sped his wife to the hospital to give birth).

-Nearly two-thirds of YouTube’s top 1,000 videos have been banned in Germany due to the fanatical German Journalists’ Union (DJV) absurdly demanding that artists be paid for each and every video that in any way uses any part of their music–even if it is just some random user having part of some random song on in the background of their video.

-Company web sites are usually primitive and have inaccurate/outdated information, while almost no one answers their phone and you are forced to show up repeatedly during (often ridiculously narrow) operating hours to get the simplest product or service. Germans only work 36-39 hours per week, and the French have a 35-hour work week.

It goes on and on, and on.

Democrats, who used to absolutely crucify people for pointing out their socialist ideas and beliefs, now openly defend this disastrous, time-disproven ideology (see deregulation and lower taxes in China in the 1980s, in India in the 1990s, in Ireland in the early 2000s, and the left’s class warfare insanity that destroyed the US economy in 2008) as it punishes success, rewards failure, and lures self-reliant individuals into total nanny state dependence through handouts.


Usually, they try to justify it by arguing that Europe has superior, more affordable education and health care (as if freedom were irrelevant and all that mattered was being better-maintained cattle). But when you actually live there, you can’t help but notice that there is more to the story…as when you discover that you have to pay a small fortune to get your kids through grade school. Or that you still have to pay through the nose for insurance every month, cover all your own prescription costs, and sit on waiting lists to see a “free” doctor.

The bottom line: The only difference between the nanny state socialist control freaks of Europe and the ruthless Third World tyrants they condemn, is that in Europe, they bankrupt, impoverish, and enslave people through the charade of voting, as opposed to at gun point…to maintain the appearance of legitimacy.

Think about that next time you’re sitting in the lap of luxury listening to Democrats talk about how well socialism works.

Does this seem like a system under which you would like to live? Let us know in the comments!