Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Congressional candidates’ questionnaires from select Illinois districts


The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008.

Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)







In mid-November, I mailed questionnaires to candidates for Congress from Congressional Districts—11, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19. I also sent the questionnaire to the Senatorial candidates for Illinois. None of the Senatorial candidates responded. One of the Congressional candidates—John Morris—from Congressional District 18, which is my District, responded and Jim McConoughey – R sent campaign literature. Two candidates from other Districts answered the questionnaire. Because of the length of the posts, I am again posting the original questions and the answer given with any comments provided by Jason Wallace who was the first candidate I posted. Each question asked for a response that strongly agreed, agreed, was undecided, disagreed or strongly disagreed. To save space and time, I am only posting the answer—not all five choices—for each question. I am posting the responses and comments by the candidates without any comment from me.

To read the responses of John Morris Congressional candidate, 18th district—Republican Party and of Steve Cox Congressional candidate, 15th district—Democrat Party go to the original post on January 15, 2008 for John Morris and January 9, 2008 for Steve Cox.

The responses of Green Congressional candidate Jason Wallace—11th Congressional district:

1) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to overturn the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade that allows abortion.

His answer: Disagree

Comment: I am personally against the idea of abortion and disagree with the use of it as a form of birth control. I would also never ask anyone I know to have an abortion and that adoption should be a top priority. Abortion should be the last possible option for a pregnant mother especially in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s health is at risk.

However, I think we also need to stop letting this issue divide people of good will and start seeking common ground for everyone.

I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I realize that some will say that this is impossible or that this is a cop-out. Nevertheless, hear me out before drawing any conclusions.

In order for people to start seeking some common ground, let us first acknowledge that people on both sides of the abortion “divide” are motivated by some deeply held—and legitimate—principles. I respect people who stand up for their principles. After all, the Green Party and this campaign are also motivated by deeply held principles.

On the one hand, many people who oppose abortion are motivated by a consistent ethic of life. The Ten Key Values of the Green Party are certainly consistent with this philosophy. We want to protect life, especially human life, and enhance the quality of that life.

That is why we believe in protecting and restoring our environment.

That is why we oppose war and violence as a matter of principle, except when absolutely necessary for self-defense.

That is why we want to put an end to poverty, exploitation and oppression.

That is why we want to provide real economic opportunities for all and establish health care as a recognized right.

That is why we oppose capital punishment as a matter of principle.

In these respects, certainly, the Green Party, and I are pro-life.

On the other hand, people who defend the right to choose abortion are motivated by considerations of gender equity and civil rights—which are also consistent with Green Party values. The right to privacy and women’s (and men’s) right to control their personal bodily integrity are protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Supporters of choice also object to the idea that an already intrusive and overbearing government should be permitted to impose its will, or the tenets of any particular religious or philosophical doctrines, on the rest of society, and advance the view that this should be a matter of individual judgment and conscience.

In recognition of these considerations, the Green Party, and I are pro-choice, insofar as we do not believe that it is the proper role of the State to prohibit or criminalize abortion.

We should also acknowledge that people on each side of the abortion “divide” do not always agree with each other, and that there are complex sub-issues. While no reasonable person can deny that the human embryo and fetus are living, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the point at which the embryo or fetus becomes sufficiently developed to be a “person” protected by law. Not all “pro-life” advocates or “pro-choice” advocates agree with each other on where the right lines should be drawn. Pro-life supporters may disagree over the issue of embryonic stem cell research. On the other hand, almost everyone, on both sides of the “divide,” recognizes the need to act to protect the health and safety of the mother.

There is also broad agreement on the proposition that abortion is an experience to be avoided if at all possible. On this basis, we can bridge the divide: We can stop making abortion such a divisive issue by working together to reduce the incidence of abortion—but without prohibiting it. Making abortion illegal is not the best way to reduce its frequency.

The unifying goal should be to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place and help make every child a wanted and well-supported child. We can enhance women’s right to full reproductive choices by improving women’s (and men’s) economic opportunities, by working toward the goal of promoting full employment at living wage (or better) jobs. The evidence indicates that this would be much more effective at reducing the incidence of abortion than prohibiting it—and besides, it is a goal that we ought to have anyway!

We also need to combat ignorance by improving our education system, including better sex education. We need to promote greater access to, and use of contraception, including “morning after” or emergency contraception. We need to provide genuine societal support for single mothers who do choose to bear children, so that they can provide a nurturing home environment for their children through infancy before having to return to the workforce.

Through this combination of policies, we can reduce the incidence of abortion while still respecting women’s right to choose.

2) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to pass a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. No other types of marriages or civil unions are acceptable.

His answer: Disagree

Comment: When discussing the issue of same-sex marriage, I believe we need to go a step further and have government get out of the business of determining the definition of marriage. The word marriage should be strictly used to describe religious ceremonies, not state-sanctioned contractual personal relationships. I believe in a strong separation of church and state, and marriage is something that should be based on the couple’s faith and religious preference. With the various divisions among churches as to who can and cannot get marriage, the government’s matter in this controversial issue only makes things worse for our communities. Instead of marriage, the government would issue and recognize “civil unions” for everyone that so chooses. Regardless of sex or gender, the same rights and privileges for people that are currently married would be extended to everyone in society that gets a civil union. Citizens currently married under existing law would stay married, but the name would change to a civil union in regards to dealing with the government. This allows people the freedom to get married in a church if they choose to; otherwise, they can simply be civil union partners. However, if we cannot accomplish this needed separation between church and state, I would support “marriage” for all, on an equal basis.

3) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to expand the Constitutional rights of practicing homosexuals since the equal protection clause rightly permits such activity.

His answer: Agree

Comment: See answer to question number two.

4) Congress should provide a “path to citizenship” for people who are in this country illegally.

His Answer: Agree

Comment: Congress needs to enforce the laws that already exist on immigration. In order to deter and prevent illegal immigration, the economic incentive must be eliminated. Businesses that knowingly and willing hire illegal immigrants should be punished and not be allowed to get away with their current practices.

Next, we should change the requirements of who is born into citizenship. Instead of being born a citizen upon birth, the requirement should be that both parents are already American citizens.

As part of a comprehensive bill to deal with illegal immigration, a more collaborative plan with Border States and Federal funding should be provided so that security patrols ensure that no one is entering illegally. This can come with a combination of the physical presence of people and the use of technology like Predator drones. In addition, instead of building a wall along the Mexican and United States border, we could issue microfinance loans to improve the economic conditions of the local Mexican economies. This will also remove the economic incentive to leave for the United States illegally.

Congress should allow Federal agencies to work with local law enforcement agencies and document all current illegal immigrants. The logistics of deporting all of these immigrants would be too costly and likely destroy local economies.

Instead, a local criteria needs to be developed on the workforce needs of that area. Illegal immigrants’ educational and vocational skills will be evaluated with that criteria and if the person meets the criteria, they will not be deported. From there they can start the process of being a citizen or become a temporary worker. Once all illegal immigrants have been documented, they can be tracked and wages they earn will produce a new source of taxes that provide new revenues that can be used to restore funding for Social Security, Medicare, and veteran benefits. For the immigrants that do not meet the criteria and need of the local economy, they will then go through the process of being deported.

5) “Strict constructionists” should be appointed to the Unites States Supreme Court and to the other lower federalist courts.

His Answer: Undecided

Comment: No comment was provided.

6) A “windfall profits” tax should be placed upon oil companies that benefit with unexpectantly high profits from the high price of oil.

His Answer: Agree

Comment: No comment was provided.

7) The United States Constitution provides for a “wall of separation between church and State” as defined by the United States Supreme Court.

His Answer: Agree

Comment: No specific comment was provided. See answer to question number two.

8) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to end funding for our troops in Iraq and establish a timetable to withdraw United States armed forces.

His Answer: Strongly disagree

Comment: I would never vote for something that doesn’t support our troops. The best way to support them is to get them home and support them when they are back. (This was handwritten on the questionnaire sheet—my addition.)

My timetable for withdrawing U.S. Troops from Iraq includes is an immediate and complete withdrawal of our occupying forces.

Removing our troops is not enough; we must also remove mercenary groups like Blackwater. After our withdrawal, we must work with neighboring states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait as well as the United Nations to provide a transition and stability to the region.

Reparations must be given to the innocent lives that we have disrupted and so that the Iraqi people can control their own lives.

I am a member of Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War, because I strongly believe in ending the occupation of Iraq.

Instead of being in Iraq, our military should finish its job in Afghanistan and bring Osama Bin Laden to justice for the crimes he committed on September 11th. We had support from many people of the world to eliminate the Taliban and move Afghanistan into a more developed nation, but have been distracted and weighed down with the War in Iraq.

Finally, I will work for full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other support for our returning and current veterans. This also includes expanding the current benefits we offer troops. The VA and other programs that support our troops are not fully funded and our returning heroes do not receive the care they need when they need it. Suicide rates continue to climb, homelessness, PTSD, drug addition, and other ignored issues that takes months and sometime even more than a year before a veteran receives their benefits is the support at home our troops currently receive. This negligence and mistreatment of our troops needs to stop now! (This was a typed response to the same question—my addition.)

9) The United States Supreme Court was correct in establishing abortion for women as a Constitutional right.

His Answer: Agree

Comment: See answer to question number one.

10) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to establish term limits for all members of Congress.

His Answer: Agree

Comment: No comment was provided.

11) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to pass a Constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship so that babies born in the United States to individuals who are not American citizens do not automatically become a citizen at birth.

His Answer: Strongly agree

Comment: See answer to question number four.

12) The United States government needs to more vigorously enforce the immigrant laws as presently written by Congress.

His Answer: Strongly agree

Comment: See answer to question number four.

(To the best of my ability, I posted each answer and the comments exactly as provided. I did no editing—my addition.)



Post a Comment

<< Home