78 votes

U.S Marine Brigadier General Joins The R3VOLution! (St. Petersburg Florida)

Former U.S Marine Brigadier General Mark Bircher has joined The R3VOLution!

He is running for U.S Congress in Florida CD 13 in the Special Election Republican Primary, which will take place on January 14 2014.

District 13 is located in Pinellas County Florida, it includes an area from Dunedin to western and northern St. Petersburg.
Click these links to see if you are in the district:

If he wins, he will be in the March 14 2014 Special Election.


Thanks to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Tampa Bay for sending this survey to Mr. Bircher and the other candidates.

Economic Issues & Taxes

1. What can Congress do to help return manufacturing jobs to the United States?

Bircher: No US trade negotiator may sit on any foreign company board of directors or similar organization for ten years after leaving government service. Everything Congress does must either add to the security of the states or relate to enhancing US business interests, jobs, trade, economic growth, markets, etc. Everything else is purview of state legislator.

2. How should the federal government proceed in addressing the national debt?

Bircher: Require federal government to adhere to 10th Amendment and point to where in Art I, Sec 8, federal authority exists within enumerated powers. Also, please see answer #3 below, debt and taxes are related.

3. Do you support a reconsideration of the US tax code? If so, what changes do you propose or support?

Bircher: Return to Founder’s intent of politicians being directly accountable for spending (through the election process) every other November. Essentially, return to the “apportionment” system that existed prior to the 16th Amendment. Short term change = balanced budget. Long term change = repeal 16th Amendment, and end the IRS as being unnecessary.

4. Do you support a full and complete audit of the Federal Reserve?

Bircher: Please see Ron Paul’s comments for my position.

Foreign Policy

5. When is US military intervention in other nations justified?

Bircher: US Const Art I Sec 8, clauses 11, 12, 13, control. Depends upon the nature of the situation requiring intervention and the intervention forces anticipated. For example, military intervention to evacuate an embassy staff and American citizens during civil unrest in a foreign country, as opposed to major actions like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. NO undeclared wars. Only US Marines allowed to intervene without war declaration, (clause 13 – congressional authority to maintain a Navy, Marines in Dept of Navy,). The President and Congress have the constitutional authority to deploy Marines, but Congressional approval by “up or down” vote of Congress is required to deploy US Army, (clause 12) . “Since only the People actually pay in ‘Blood and Treasure’ for war, only the People may properly decide upon war.” Thomas Jefferson. George Washington’s “Farewell Address”, probably the best source for cogent policy on this issue.

6. What are your thoughts on the current policy of targeted drone strikes in foreign countries?

Bircher: Drone attacks are a “bright line” violation of the US Constitution unless Congress declares a war.

7. Is foreign aid a worthwhile expenditure for our government? What changes, if any, would you propose to our current foreign aid program?

Bircher: For the immediate future, I favor a total suspension of foreign aid until the budget crisis is solved. If and when we are fiscally solvent, we then review our foreign aid expenditure within the scope of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the mindset of, “Policy follows interests.

Civil Liberties

8. Do you favor scaling back or ending the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs? If so, what changes do you propose or support?

Bircher: Domestic surveillance by warrants only.

9. Do you favor a repeal of the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA of 2012? Why or why not?

Bircher: The ancient based writ of habeas corpus is arguably the most powerful tool of free men over injustice ever invented. Arbitrary imprisonment is the most pernicious indicator of government tyranny that exists. I favor repeal of all government actions that trample the US Constitution. If history is a teacher, the people of the US are closer than they can ever imagine to the abuse the government now projects on “enemy combatants.” Detained people are either prisoners of war, or suspected criminals. There are no other possibilities. In either case, the process of law controls. Inventing new classifications of detainees, e.g., “enemy combatant” and new processes “ad hoc” are Orwellian in there circumvention of law. “‘Necessity’, is the justification of tyrants and the creed of slaves.” William Pitt.

10. How can the War on Drugs be improved?

Bircher: Mostly by getting the federal government out of the process. This is a state issue.

The US Constitution

11. Do you support the Constitutional restrictions on federal government powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 as an absolute limit on all government functions and programs?

Bircher: Yes. All civilian and military officers take a personal oath, on their honor, to the Constitution. I believe the voluntary decision to take the oath, answers the above question.

12. Do you support a state’s right to nullify federal law, as many have already done for example by legalizing medical marijuana, or blocking implementation of the Affordable Care Act?

Bircher: The federal government is an invention of the states to serve state interests. The “supremacy” clause, Art VI, Sec 2, only applies when there is a conflict of laws within the enumerated powers of the federal government and a state. In my view, states do not need a “right to nullify” federal law outside the enumerated powers because state law is already supreme in those instances; please see 9th and 10th Amendments.

13. Are there any departments of the federal government that you believe could be significantly scaled back, reallocated to the states, or ended completely? If so, which ones, and why?

Bircher: All departments, agencies, bureaus, etc., in the Executive Branch that are outside of the enumerated powers, e.g., Dept of Educ, HUD, H&S, etc., should be eliminated in their entirety. We are actually losing our liberty faster on the “regulatory” side of the federal government, e.g., TSA, than the statutory. All other organizations with federal and state shared responsibilities should be eliminated or “right sized” in accordance with what the states say is required to support state interests.

14. Do you support a repeal of the Affordable Care Act?

Bircher: Yes, outside enumerated powers

15. What reforms do you propose to make healthcare more affordable and accessible?

Bircher: Any regulation of healthcare should be decided by the state legislatures, and not by the federal government. There is no reason central government is involved in healthcare. The word “affordable” is actually meaningless in the context of health care, except for its populist appeal. No has ever actually defined what “affordable” means in the ACA context; affordable to whom? Concerning healthcare, I am aligned with the ideas of Dr. Benjamin Carson.

Social Issues

16. In what way(s) should government be involved with marriage?

Bircher: None at the federal level. Whatever the states decide through their legislatures at the state level.

17. What involvement should the federal government have in regard to abortion?

Bircher: The Framers had abortion and covered the issue completely in the 9th Amendment. Again, a state issue. SCOTUS should never have granted certiorari to hear Roe v. Wade, or Doe v. Bolton because there is no valid federal question (privacy basis was specious at best, frivolous at worst) to provide jurisdiction.

Government Transparency

18. Currently, one US Congressman utilizes social networking to promote government transparency by sharing every single vote he casts in Congress, and providing an explanation for that vote. Will you promise to provide a similar level of openness and accessibility to the votes you cast?

Bircher: Yes. As a public servant, bright lights and transparency must be a component to enable the people’s scrutiny and review of their Rep’s voting record.

Additional comments or thoughts:

Bircher: “A Republic deserves the government it elects or tolerates.” Thomas Jefferson


Remember to vote on January 14th in the Republican primary, and March 11th for the general election!

If you found this questionnaire useful, please consider offering a small contribution, so that we may continue our work and reach new people with the message of sensible limited government, free markets, and individual Liberty. https://rlctb.org/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fireant's picture

Young has guts alright, but his constitutional beliefs, typical

of the "values" voters in my area, is only skin deep. I supported him, but not with the same fervor that I support Brannon and Bircher. Byrne may have a democrat background, but he will fill the republican role in the tradition of Edwards, Callahan, and Bonner quite well; that being an establishment republican cutting deals to bring home the bacon, which is demanded by his big business constituents.

Undo what Wilson did

You need people

with signs at all the voting locations on election day. How well do you know Bircher personally?

I hope my thread helped, and I hope he wins and does us proud.

Sounds like the Supreme Court

Sounds like the Supreme Court would need disbanded under Bircher.
Or at least shut 'em down for six months and send 'em back to law school to study the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Mark Bircher spoke on the

Mark Bircher spoke on the Liberty Underground show yesterday. The link starts with his interview:


Not a single question

Not a single question regarding his support or non support of legalizing medical marijuana in a state that still locks people in cages for taking marijuana, seizes there assets and wrecks there lives?

I will hold my nose and vote the lesser of 2 evils yet again and this time it'll be for whoever supports my freedom to use for whatever reason I so choose a plant that G-d put here for all of us. Right now it appears that 99% of the republicans in this inbred state would continue to throw good people in jail for the crime of taking care of themselves.

But you all talk about the Constitution. LOL, it's a surprise you can even spell the word. Hypocrites.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Hum how could you miss it

He stated a number of times that STATE ISSUE.


Legalizing marijuana = you think you owe the government

Oh Mr's government man.. please let me pay taxes so I can grow and smoke marijuana.

You progressives are really not getting the picture of what LIBERTY is.

Liberty = Decriminalise marijuana.

What's your next trick legalizing tomatoes?

SteveMT's picture

237,000 people are incarcerated for non-violent drug crime.

1.6 million people as of 2011 are in our jails. Read all about it.

If I had ONE issue

This is it.

I'm well aware of the prison stats, ty SMT.

Back in the 90s I worked very hard on this subject, attended seven prop 215 trials to support the victime (prisoners of the war on drugs), worked with many groups.. The Patriot Act KILLED a lot of our work, raising funds for bails, trials, attorneys, books, on stats nationally.. education.

I joined the Libertarian Party in 76 because of it.. I would have never been interested in politics because it this ONE issue.

This issue represents freedom to me more than any issue. And another reason why I became a friend to that little country.. who if you do any research is leading the fight.


Hey Granger, as an attorney, let me tell you...

Lot of people make this mistake...

The term decriminalization vs. legalization makes no difference.

I don't care what commie tactics about definitions (double speak) you've bought into... Not calling you a commie... But I am saying that whoever has you worrying about the term has you confused, likely on purpose.

ALL that matters is the specific wording of the law, and what exactly it is "legalizing/decriminalizing".

The definitions of those terms are irrelevant. The definition of the written LAW itself is all that matters. Leave out the terms altogether, when writing the law.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

It makes a difference here

We had an election not too long ago in CA over it..

Here.. you can grow, smoke, do what you want.. no one cares. NO ONE.. until you decide to go into business.. now here's the decriminalized part. There are no taxes. You buy tags from the sheriff, you buy insurance. I saw a report not too long ago that said something like 40% of the population here is growing professionally.. so they are making money.. some claim the marijuana industry is THE industry that floats the tri-county. But there are NO TAXES.

So to me, that is THE difference. Legal = Taxes. Decriminalized NO Taxes.

edit to add this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/prop-19-results-mar...

How 'bout "Re-legalization"? Hello Granger! Ignoring this point?

It doesn't matter what you call it... See.

What matters is the LAW. Do you want to see marijuana fully de-criminalized/legalized/re-legalized in your state? Then you need to make sure your state WRITEs the RIGHT LAW...

The law in CA as you described sounds like it's only 'legalizing/de-criminalizing/re-legalizing' a specific process by which you can go to the sheriff and purchase "insurance" (or is it a tax?), and can grow up to but no more than 99 plants, can only sell on blah blah property in blah blah blah... restrictions, stipulations...

If the goal is total freedom for the use of cannabis, then ANY law written to "legalize/de-criminalize/re-legalize" marijuana should simply repeal laws previously passed to prohibit it.

If you still want to 'regulate' or restrict it's use in some way, but allow greater freedom for it's use than is tolerated by law now, then the law must be written for that specific desire.

Not that complicated.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Not much for that stuff

but you live int he most beautiful part of the state of CA, and if people can live there growing it that's really cool.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You don't understand. You are not getting it.

It does not matter what it means "TO YOU".

I'm telling you, legally, it is a pointless argument, achieving nothing but division and distraction.

You NEVER use either term (decriminalization, or legalization) in the written law itself!!!
ONLY if you put the term in the proposed decriminalization/legalization law itself, does the difference matter. And there is no practical difference. It's just conceptual mental-masturbation, I'm TELLING YOU...

Did you not read my post explaining how Connecticut had "decriminalized" marijuana... except they didn't...

As an ATTORNEY at LAW advising you on this subject, I'm telling you it is irrelevant!

Seriously... Propose a written law to me right now, and I'll tell you if it matters...

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I call b.s.

you support too many crackpot legal theories to be a lawyer, lawmanjed. I'm on to you.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Let me put it to you this way

We had an election to "LEGALIZE". That was THE WORD. Not MY word. That was the WORD enployed by the genius law makers who I guess don't know anything about law. IT FAILED.

So.. here we are making money, not paying taxes, and everyone here says it's "decriminalized".

Maybe you found your nitch? Maybe you can come to the state of CA.. come up here and educate everyone about the semantics?

If I went up to a grower and said, "marijuana is legal here." I would be told, "Yeah? Tell it to a federal judge."

I'll tell them I know an ATTORNEY AT LAW on DP who advised me and see how far that gets..


(((((Granger))))) - No you didn't have an election to "legalize"

Your state held a vote on a referendum to pass a certain law written to 'legalize' &/or 'decriminalize' a specific means of producing, selling, and acquiring marijuana. Big difference.

If they actually used the word "LEGALIZATION" in the law itself, that was dumb... Because then it must be legally defined!
Can you provide me a link to the law itself?
Let me give you an example of what I mean, and how it should be done...

Example: Let's say the law prohibiting marijuana possession, sale, etc. is HB-123...
The proposed legalization/decriminalization law should say...

"HB-123 is hereby repealed, effective immediately."

What is SHOULD NOT SAY is...

"Marijuana is hereby legalized, effective immediately." or
"Marijuana is hereby decriminalized, effective immediately."

The law your state voted on was probably very long, descriptive, and specific about exactly how marijuana could be produced, bought and sold, and was "legalizing/decriminalizing" that specific process.

Calling me lawnmanjed is just immature...
(And it's 'niche', btw, not nitch)
I'm not playing semantics, you are, because you fail to comprehend the practical application of the law, and you want to argue over synonymous terms... The law MUST dictate HOW the term is being applied!
Do you not understand?
Once again... arguing over decriminalization vs. legalization is a PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT, i.e. - MENTAL MASTURBATION... seeing as how marijuana is already illegal.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

And Granger...

WTF is this statement...

"If I went up to a grower and said, "marijuana is legal here." I would be told, "Yeah? Tell it to a federal judge."
I'll tell them I know an ATTORNEY AT LAW on DP who advised me and see how far that gets.."

What does that have to do with anything? I never said marijuana was legal in CA, and it hasn't been decriminalized either...
A SPECIFIC PROCESS TO GROW, BUY, AND SELL Marijuana has been 're-legalized'/decriminalized!
You can only regulate BEHAVIORS, not existence itself!

And what would a FEDERAL judge have to do with CALIFORNIA law?! Federal law is different. But that doesn't have anything to do with my point about legalization & decriminalization...

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I'm not understanding you

Here's a wiki on what I voted NO Prop 19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)

Here's a wiki on the county VS fed in reference to my comment, "if I said to a grower: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Here in the tri-county everyone I know says it is decriminalized..

I AM NOT AT ATTORNEY. (I did take a course on entertainmant law, so I could hire attorneys when I was producing).

As for the "lawnmanjed": I did not mean to appear or act "immature to you", I apologise. I was refering to this post in a subtile way:

LOL, Granger, you keep calling me "Lawn man jed"

Submitted by Lawmanjed on Fri, 08/16/2013 - 01:22. Permalink

...It's Law man jed.

But it's extra funny because I am a landscaper... My dad who's name it is for, is a lawyer.

Again, I apologise because I really don't care what you do, law man, lawn man.

If I have somehow hurt you, I am very sorry for that was not my intent.





I can provide link after link after link.....

If it makes you feel better.. "you're right." Everyone making money in the Emerald trianle is WRONG and you sure have a BIG job to straighten us all out.

Thank you for doing your best to inform me there is no difference. Please help me find reference to back you up, because I'm not getting anything to support your claim. Thank you


Communication breakdown... ?

I've made it abundantly clear what I'm talking about...

"California Proposition 19 (also known as the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act)"

- That law was DEFEATED! So that is NOT the law Granger!

This convo is going nowhere fast.

I know people in Humbolt County, Garberville, and Mendocino. I've been to the Emerald triangle twice, ok. I am somewhat familiar with the laws there, and it is convoluted. There is state law, then there is local county ordinances. It is NOT a free-for-all. You cannot just do whatever you want with marijuana, there are legal loopholes you need to jump through if you want to be within the law.

Why would you call me lawn man, then refer to that convo you had with my son, if you did not intend it to be derogatory? I thought you were above that. No, you have not hurt my feelings, I am a big boy. But it des seem you are taking this a bit personal, though I'm not sure why you are so invested in this argument.

I am invested because I am right, and as an attorney and founder of P.O.T., a legalization/de-criminalization/re-legalization advocacy group, I know what must happen if we are ever going to get a proper 'legalization' law passed, anywhere.

This really gets my goat though Granger. You, for some reason, wrote this...

"Everyone making money in the Emerald trianle is WRONG and you sure have a BIG job to straighten us all out." -


I'm trying to do the exact OPPOSITE, get a true ALL OUT legalization/de-criminalization law proposed, and passed. You are providing stiff, block-headed resistance.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

your son? How am I to know if you or your son are posting?

It is decriminalized here. Call it convelouted. We're happy.


Uh...? You aren't... You don't know me anyway, so...

We share the same views, and are often in the same room, like right now. So what does it matter to you, anyway? And you've clearly known that both my son and I have been using this screen name, as you brought it up. So why are you acting surprised?

You clearly don't want to discuss this issue, you'd rather try to somehow discredit my argument with backdoor accusations.

Forget it, stay stupid.

"IT" meaning marijuana is NOT 'de-criminalized' in California. In the Tri-County, a process for growing, buying and selling marijuana is 'de-criminalized. There is a difference, you are not grasping that.

Lawmanjed - Sr.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I didn't know

I just found out that you and your son share the same name.

Thank you.


See this convo I had with one poster about the subject...


"Legalization vs. de-criminalization...
Both terms essentially mean the same thing.
In CT and other states, possession of small amounts of marijuana (less than 1/2 ounce) is 'decriminalized' . You only get a $100 fine, instead (not a crime, but not legal). Yet, somehow, in my former home state of CT, despite state LAW, individuals are still arrested and CONVICTED for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Technicalities like, for instance, possession of a paraphernalia (normally a lesser charge than possession of marijuana itself) still land people with criminal charges. Having it in a 'baggie' (weed is often sold in these baggies) means 'intent to sell', even if the charges don't stick.
In these cases, the term 'decriminalization' is no better than the interpretation of 'legalization' in Uruguay.
Uruguay says it has legalized marijuana. No it hasn't. It has legalized a specific process for producing and obtaining the substance.
In conclusion, the terms 'decriminalization' & 'legalization' are essentially the same thing, and arguing over which term to use is pointless.
What DOES MATTER however, is WHAT EXACTLY DOES the WORDING of the 'Legalization/decriminalization LAW SAY???!!!
What specifically is the law legalizing/decriminalizing?
That's the point."

"- No doubt he is right about Uruguay's "legalization of marijuana" is not the ideal solution.
That is because it is NOT legalization of marijuana, but of a specific, government controlled process by which marijuana can be produced and sold to the public, under supervision of the state.

As I said, "legalization" or "decriminalization", it doesn't matter what you call it... What matters is the specific wording of the law that is written."

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Get the Federal Government out of the War on Drugs

The Republican Liberty Caucus surveyed all the candidates.
To read the entire survey: https://rlctb.org/florida-cd-13-candidate-questionnaire-resp...

10. How can the War on Drugs be improved?

Bircher: Mostly by getting the federal government out of the process. This is a state issue.

You sound like you don't pay

You sound like you don't pay attention much. FL is polling around 75% yes for MM. Petitions are in process and the question will be asking in Nov. It will pass in a land slide.

Bircher is for making it a State's issue as indicated in his response to question #10. He's against the Federal War on Drugs. This is the correct stance to take.

This, along with knowing that MM will be legal (and that's the stepping stone to full decriminalization and eventually legalization) I'm not really sure why you would vote for the "Lesser of 2 evils" instead of Bircher.

bircher is for making the

bircher is for making the "drug war better"? LOL.

Yes 82% of those polled in the state of Fla are supportive of medical cannabis and more than 50% are for outright legalization and yes it will pass when the democrats are back in the governors chair. At the present time ALL the republicans in power are not only against denying sick people a medicine that works for them, they are supportive of stopping the petition presently with hundreds of thousands of registered voters signatures from even getting on the ballot to "allow" said voters from voting so who do you think your kidding with your B/S.

But you go ahead and follow the same propaganda you've been following and stay true to your "party" with your fellow comrade's in arms while sick people are stripped of their freedom, locked in cages and you are one of the types of people who support that while mumbling something else.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution


Anyone here that can help

Anyone here that can help setup (lead the effort) for a New Year's Moneybomb for Mark Bircher? His been airing ad's and just got signs that are being put out everywhere. Need all the help we can get him for the final push before the election Jan 14th!!

Debbie's picture

This is fantastic!! Thank you Mr. Stonewall!

I'm sure if he can make it to the special election, he will have Dr. Paul's endorsement!