I was quite disappointed today when I read that the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nevada has chosen to endorse my opponent instead of the true Liberty Candidate in this race. Their reason cited was simply that I have no experience that qualifies me for the position I am running for, and I am simply using Ron Paul’s name to present my credentials. Let’s examine that for a second:

The RLC of Nevada’s endorsed candidate voted in favor of the FISA Act, a direct assault on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. I would have voted against it as it is Unconstitutional.

The RLC of Nevada’s endorsed candidate voted in favor of the HUGE bailout of banks through the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Only 45 Republicans voted in favor of this bill, but the RLC of Nevada chooses to side with one of those Republicans. I would have voted against it.

The RLC of Nevada’s endorsed candidate is a co-sponsor on a bill that puts us on a pathway to war with Iran. I would never co-sponsor such legislation.

One other failure by the RLC of Nevada to take into account…I have 20 years of experience actually managing a business, managing people, balancing budgets, spending within my means and the means of the company that I work for, have worked on political campaigns and been politically active in the past, have the same college background as my opponent, and have the same amount of political experience that John Ensign had when he first ran for and won his Congressional seat in 1994. I think Senator Ensign has turned out alright.

I understand that I have not had experience being a career politician, I have not had any experience violating my oath of office in voting for bills that violate the Constitution, have not had any experience taking large sums of money from Political Action Committees and Lobbyists, have not had any experience with running up a $10 Trillion deficit. I guess if this is the type of experience that the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nevada is taking into account when choosing to endorse my opponent, you chose to endorse the right candidate. We should be very careful how much true champions of Liberty and Freedom choose to aid groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nevada with donations and support.

I received a brief letter from a retired Naval veteran regarding gun rights this past weekend, and it brings forward a couple of questions that I have not answered in writing. I will post the letter here (without the author’s full address and phone number) and then comment:

I received the following letter from a couple of concerned citizens of Nevada regarding Renewable Energy and my position.  I will post the letter (as both letters were the same) and then comment:

Dear Mr. Smack:

As gas prices skyrocket and the peak of the summer driving season is upon  us, many elected officials and candidates are demanding access to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off our coasts, and other sensitive areas.

Additionally, there has been an increase in drilling amendments added to  bills in an attempt to open up coastal and refuge drilling to allegedly solve our nation’s energy crisis.  Continuing our  dependence on dirty
fossil fuels will not solve our energy problems.

Oil, gas, and nuclear companies have not been accountable to American taxpayers and are raking in record profits, while consumers and the environment suffer. In fact, oil and gas companies are only using 18% of the leases to which they already have access to drill.  Proposing new areas to drill when companies are not drilling everywhere they have permission to underscores the immense greed of the energy industry.

I urge you to invest now in renewable energy and commit to fully funding the Green Jobs Act and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant.

—————————————————————-

My position on Federal funding toward renewable energy sources is still the same as when I started this campaign.  I’m all for exploration of any and all types of renewable energy sources, as well as being all for drilling for oil in places that we are not drilling.  To be honest, if we had listened to President Bush when he first came into office about opening up drilling in ANWR and offshore drilling off the shores of California and Florida (where he received as much pushback from his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, as anyone else) we might not be paying $4.00 plus for gas right now.  I’m not in substantial agreement with many of the policies of the Bush Administration, but this is one area where he proved prophetic.  America is addicted to oil, and perhaps the high prices will bring Hybrid and Electric vehicles into the mainstream where they belong in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources, but we must also work to become independent in oil for ourselves as well.

Renewable energy such as wind, geo-thermal, solar, and other sources are necessary and there should be enough profit in the ventures to go forward without the help of the Government.  If there is not enough profit for utility companies to move forward with projects in renewable energy, it is not up to the Federal Government to make it profitable for them.  If Government should be spending anywhere, it should be to help energy companies upgrade our antiquated energy delivery infrastructure to make it much more efficient.  Much of this infrastructure is 30 plus years old, and how many of us are still driving 30 year old cars or using 30 year old computers?  Technology has improved in energy delivery to the point that if we simply updated the system, we would see a 30-40% increase in efficiency without building another power plant.

Another subject is Ethanol.  I am four square against any Federal subsidies for the production of Ethanol, let’s let the market decide if Ethanol is going to be the fuel of the future or not.  One thing that the production of Ethanol is directly hurting in Nevada is the cattle industry.  Ethanol has driven the cost of winter feed up 100 percent in just the past few years, causing many ranchers in our state to give up on trying to continue to raise cattle.  Nearly 200,000 head of cattle have disappeared in Nevada in the past 25 years, and this may just be the final nail in the industry coffin for this state, with the continued BLM regulations (another subject, but Federal control of almost 90 percent of Nevada lands is something else that needs to be addressed) and water needs of Southern Nevada already straining this once-vibrant industry.  I also believe that Ethanol is one of the chief reasons for the inflation in food prices, as so many corporate farms have switched to producing Ethanol, there is less supply of soy, wheat, corn, and other crops.  Less supply with steady demand = higher prices.  There is a place for Ethanol, but let’s let the market decide!

So, to directly answer the question stated at the end of the letter I received, I would vote against the $125 Million per year Green Jobs Act and the $2 Billion per year Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant.  My question back to those who ask me to support this measure is:  What do we cut?  We must first eliminate the federal deficit before I believe we should be considering any additional spending.   It should be up to the individual and corporations, not Federal Government, to figure out how to be more efficient and to conserve.  That is what Freedom and Liberty are all about!!!

I have been asked on the campaign trail exactly how I plan to set myself apart as a candidate running against an opponent with the Conservative record that my opponent, Dean Heller, has. I have challenged back that, although his record may be recognized as Conservative by many, he has not voted consistently to protect the Constitution. A glaring example is HR 6304, which was passed by the House of Representatives today with Rep. Dean Heller voting AYE. I would not have supported this bill, as it is a further erosion of our Constitutional rights as citizens of these United States. I have been unable to find the official text of the bill, but did find a summary from the ACLU website (may be a little bit biased in their description, but it was all I could find at this time…govtrack.us did not have the text of the bill available for me to use). I have highlighted important points in the ACLU description:

• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

Again, where do I begin except that this is Unconstitutional, flying directly in the face of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure. We hear the argument all the time from the President and Members of Congress that we live in dangerous times, and the need for the Patriot Act and expansion of FISA is necessary to keep us safe and secure here at home. I argue that if it is necessary to violate the Constitution to keep us safe, what are we fighting for the right to protect?

We are on very dangerous ground here, a slippery slope that is going to lead to a wholesale dismissal of the Constitution by those that we have elected to protect and defend the Constitution. Don’t the majority of those that we have elected to represent us remember that they took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? I really try not to sound like an alarmist, but seeing bills like the above pass through the House so easily, with bi-partisan support, and only the far left screaming that this is Unconstitutional…what else am I supposed to be? For once, I would have to side with the Left in believing that this is further erosion of our rights, putting even more power into the hands of the Executive Branch.

So, the next time I am asked what sets me apart from my “Conservative” opponent, I simply will state that on issues such as FISA, the Patriot Act, and Real ID, just to name a few, I will remember my oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. As Phyllis Schlafly so nicely stated in 1964 at the Republican National Convention, “We need a choice, not an echo.” I represent a clear choice for voters in Nevada CD2 on August 12th.

_______________________________________________________

Addendum:

I have been campaigning in several different parts of the state, appeared on some local television programs, and have been meeting many great people. I have had several questions regarding my positions on a variety of issues that have not been formally addressed within this site to date, and I would like to take a chance to answer some of those questions here:

What is your position on the Patriot Act?

My basic position is the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and should be repealed. This was a piece of legislation that was thrust upon us during the “What do we do now?” period right after the 9/11 attacks, and it essentially robbed us of many of the liberties that we had before 9/11. It closes once open public hearings regarding immigration and encourages public officials to resist even the most basic public record requests. There may be monitoring of religious and political institutions for any reason, not just for potential terrorist activity. It also allows for monitoring of attorney/client conversations in Federal prisons. I realize that the reasons were to undermine terrorism at it’s root, but these liberties have been taken away from all of us and this Act can be used against any American. This is dead wrong, and a blatant violation of the Constitution.

———-

What is your feeling about Real ID?

I believe that this, like the Patriot Act, is unconstitutional. It is very expensive to implement, with cost estimates I am hearing in the $20 to $30 Billion range. It provides way too much access to all Americans’ basic information, whether it be at the grocery store or at the airport. Several states, among them Alaska and Montana, are resisting the implementation of this Act, and I support those states’ efforts. Furthermore, what assurances do we have that the Real ID system would not be able to be hacked, and then every Americans most personal information is out there for the malicious people of the world to do whatever they want. I would work to repeal this as your Congressman.

———-

What is your Abortion Position?

I believe life begins at conception, and am against Abortion in all cases unless the life of the mother is in imminent danger. There should be no Federal Funding for Abortion in any Health Care initiative promoted by the Radical Left in this country. I further believe abortion is a States Rights Issue governed by the Tenth Amendment. States should be able to determine on their own the scope and reach of abortion law in their specific jurisdiction; it says as much in the Constitution.

———-

Where do you stand on the Yucca Mountain Project?

Unfortunately I believe Yucca is already a done deal, we can only hope to delay the eventual. I am against this project, but not for the reasons that environmentalists would give you. Again, it is a States Rights issue…I don’t like any situation where the Federal Government tells a state what they can and cannot do with their land, even if the land in question is owned by the Federal Government. That waste is still going to have to travel through parts of the state that is privately owned from all directions. What I would like to see instead is Nevada to be asked if they want the Nuclear storage facility, and to have the state compensated by the other states sending their waste here. It might just take care of many of the state budget problems we are currently having, and the voters in this state can decide how they want the Yucca payments spent.

Here is a small, yet very telling example of a waste of taxpayer money and resources to attempt to achieve a goal that is basically unattainable, courtesy of the United States Congress. I have highlighted points I plan to cover:

HR 4279 – Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Passed Congress May 8, 2008 410-11 with 12 Not Voting, Congressman Dean Heller voted AYE):

Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007 – Amends federal copyright law to: (1) provide a safe harbor for copyright registrations that contain inaccurate information; (2) provide that copyright registration requirements apply to civil (not criminal) infringement actions; (3) require courts to issue protective orders to prevent disclosure of seized records relating to copyright infringement; (4) revise standards for civil damages in copyright infringement and counterfeiting cases; and (5) prohibit importing and exporting of infringing copies of copyrighted works.

Amends the federal criminal code with respect to intellectual property to: (1) enhance criminal penalties for infringement of a copyright, for trafficking in counterfeit labels or packaging, and for causing serious bodily harm or death while trafficking in counterfeit goods or services; and (2) enhance civil and criminal forfeiture provisions for copyright infringement and provide for restitution to victims of such infringement.

Establishes within the Executive Office of the President the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative to formulate a Joint Strategic Plan for combating counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property and for coordinating national and international enforcement efforts to protect intellectual property rights.

Directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to appoint 10 additional intellectual property attaches to work with foreign countries to combat counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property. Establishes within the Department of Justice (DOJ) the Intellectual Property Enforcement Division to be headed by an Intellectual Property Enforcement Officer (IP Officer).

Amends the Computer Crime Enforcement Act to modify grant programs for combating computer crime to include infringement of copyrighted works over the Internet. Directs the Office of Justice Programs of DOJ to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to combat intellectual property theft and infringement crimes.

Directs the Attorney General to: (1) review Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) units and provide such units with additional support and resources; (2) direct each U.S. attorney to review policies for accepting or declining prosecutions of criminal cases involving intellectual property theft; (3) deploy five additional Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinators in foreign countries to protect the intellectual property rights of U.S. citizens; and (4) increase DOJ training and assistance to foreign governments to combat counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property.

———————

Wow, where do I begin, besides the fact that this is Unconstitutional! Reading this into plain English, it means that anyone who downloads as few as one illegal MP3 or movie is in violation of Federal Law and is subject to seizure of their computer without due process and it looks to me without a warrant in reading the entire bill (I only included the summary). This would have been akin to confiscating my cassette recorder in the 1970s for recording one song off of the radio, or confiscating my VCR for recording a TV movie!! How is this even enforceable?

So, what our Congress including our incumbent Congressman has done is voted to create a new department, the Intellectual Property Enforcement office, with a minimum of 15 new government jobs, not including the “additional support and resources” for the CHIP program, to do what will be virtually impossible…police citizens who download illegally. And, here’s the best part, you and I as the taxpayer get to pay for this service! Pretty neat, huh?

I can only think of two possible explanations for this type of legislation. The first is there is a whole bunch of money behind this effort from the record labels, movie production companies and those who produce intellectual property…instead of improving the overall product and embracing the technology movement, they simply want the government to do it for them.

The second, more sinister thought, is the overall attempt to give more power to the Federal Government and even less power to state and local government. There are laws already on the books to enforce copyright law, and to target those that are profiting from breaking said law, why an overreaching, impossible to enforce, new law?

This is an example of exactly the type of legislation that I would vote against, in the spirit of protecting our Constitution, our personal Liberty, and our Freedom. Apparently, my opponent does not share the same view. This is a prime example of why I am running for Congress!!!

I recently had a constituent who wrote to me regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. I have removed any personal information that would identify the constituent with the exception of his last name. The letter and my response are included below:

Dear Mr. Smack:

Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages, overruling a 2000 law approved by more than 60 percent of the state’s residents. As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national Christian grassroots organization, I’m outraged by this wildly overreaching decision. Voters of all faith backgrounds, and even those of no religious persuasion, have long respected the biblical model of marriage, the union of one man and one woman. My questions for you are simple:

• Do you support the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or would
you support granting marriage rights to same-sex couples?

• Will you be honest and open about this position in this fall’s campaign?

I am one of many voters who will be anxiously awaiting your answer to these questions. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Mr. Campbell

Dear Mr. Campbell,

Thank you so much for your letter, and I would like to address the very important issue of marriage. I, as I am sure many of our citizens are aware, that the California Supreme Court has ruled that the State Constitution must recognize same-sex marriage. I also believe that this is a gross miscarriage of justice on the part of the California Supreme Court, one that I believe the voters in California will rectify with a Constitutional Amendment this fall, as they have ratified legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage in the past.

Let my moral position also be clear, I personally define marriage as between a man and a woman. I do not believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized by any state, and I would certainly stand against any attempt by Congress to legislate anything besides marriage being between one man and one woman on a Federal level. I would furthermore only confirm judicial nominees that have demonstrated that they would rule on a strict Constitutional basis, and would not vote to confirm any judicial appointment that has proven otherwise. I do not believe that it is the job of members of our justice system to legislate from the bench.

Mr. Campbell, please let me thank you again for bringing this important issue back to my attention. I plan on posting this correspondence on my campaign blog, as I want to ensure that this incredibly crucial issue is addressed by myself and my campaign.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions, or if I can clarify my position on any other issue. You can also investigate my positions further at www.jamessmack.com, and I hope I can earn your support!

Most Sincerely,

James Smack
Republican Candidate for Congress
Nevada Congressional District 2

————————————————————-

A quick addendum: I added my response just as I sent it to voters here in Nevada. My views are my own, and my comments about “I believe that the voters will rectify with a Constitutional Amendment this fall” was strictly my opinion. I have really come into a little bit of a quandary with my own beliefs in States Rights here, and so let me add the disclaimer that if the voters of California decide that they wish to recognize same sex unions, I may fervently disagree with the opinion of those voters, but I will defend their right to do so under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and I would have to support the decision of the voters of California as a Constitutionalist. I had just this argument with friends of mine and realized that I may have been in conflict with my own beliefs.

I wrote this in response to a constituent who was concerned about State and Federal regulations on parents who homeschool their children. Recently there have been some significant regulations on this issue that have come out of the State of California requiring parents who homeschool to obtain teaching certificates and other restrictions. The text of the letter, with the actual question and answer, are below:

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to answer some questions in regard to how I feel about Homeschooling and my positions on Education. I salute all parents like yourself that take educating their children seriously enough to accept the challenge of homeschooling. I will take them in the order received:

1. To what extent do you support parental choice in regards to education?

I believe that the parent has every right to determine how their child is to be educated, whether that be in the public school system, in private or parochial school, or whether by schooling their child at home with the parent as the instructor.

2. Do you support the annual registration of homeschoolers in Nevada?

I do not believe that this is necessary. The superintendent of the school district or other authorized person may need to be informed of a homeschooled child to allow for participation in extracurricular activities within the public school district as provided by Nevada Law. I firmly believe that there does not need to be any regulated registration of the parents who decide that homeschooling is their best option, nor any necessity for said parents to meet state mandated teaching guidelines.

3. Do you believe homeschoolers should be subject to standardized testing?

No, subjecting homeschooled students to standardized testing is entirely unnecessary. It is an infringement on the spirit of what homeschooling is trying to accomplish, which is parental control over their child’s education. Home schooled students should be allowed access to all college entrance exams through the local school district as allowed by Nevada State Law, such as the SAT and ACT.

4. Do you support a tax credit/rebate to homeschooling families?

I most certainly support a tax credit for homeschooling families.

5. Anything else to add or could you provide a short overview of your stance on education:

As Congressman, I would be in favor of the elimination of the Federal Department of Education and elimination of No Child Left Behind, to be replaced by local and state level control of Education. I believe that returning authority to the schools at a local level will improve schooling for all students being educated in the public system. Let the parents in the community have the input on how their children should be educated. Federal and State Government should mandate as little regulation as possible on parents who wish to homeschool their children.

It is my feeling that homeschooled children are more likely to succeed, get much more individualized teaching, and are more prepared to meet the challenges of college and adult life. I look forward to continuing this conversation, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any other questions you may have!!

Most Sincerely,

James Smack
Republican Candidate for Congress
Nevada Congressional District 2
http://www.jamessmack.com/

Welcome to the James Smack for Congress Blog!!!!  I wanted to take this opportunity to remind all of you of some specific dates in case you are interested in making sure you can vote in the Republican Primary on August 12th.  

First of all, you must be registered as a Republican by July 22nd (July 12th if you are mailing in or must be postmarked for military personnel), this is extremely important since you will not be able to participate in the primary to vote for me if you are not a Registered Republican by that date.

Second, early voting will be available.  Say you know that there is no way you will be able to vote on August 12th, you can check the early voting rules for your county and you will be able to vote in the Republican Primary for Congressional District 2, as well as other races that are being run at that time…mostly local races, but important nonetheless.  According to the Nevada Secretary of State website, early voting will start July 26th and ends on August 8th.  Most early voting is available at one or two locations in the county, is usually only available on weekdays, and available from 9am to 5pm.

This brings an important date to the fore…we need to do some major fundraising between now and July 26th in order to be viable in this race.  My opponent has about $500,000 on hand, but is unlikely to spend much of it in what he is going to view as a race he has already won.  We don’t need that kind of money to compete in the primary, but I would love to file our FEC disclosure on June 30th and have something close to a six digit war chest on hand.  That would bring the Congressman out of hiding and force him to compete with us, debate us, and have a discussion on issues.  If we can do this, I will make you proud!!  I can’t wait to engage in a debate with Mr. Heller.

Every little bit helps, we can get thousands of bumper stickers, signs and buttons for just a few thousand dollars… the rest is to blitz local radio and TV.  I already have someone to shoot the TV and create radio ads, just need the money to air them.

Welcome to our blog site!!!  This site is for you, and I look forward to having a conversation!!!  I should not have to say to keep things civilized and refrain from foul language…but I said it anyway…

James Smack
Republican Candidate for Congress
Nevada Congressional District 2