Casida Answers Liberty Candidate ApplicationSubmitted by TishaTCasida on Sun, 05/04/2014 - 21:14
Casida Answers Liberty Candidate Application
May 4, 2014
Tisha Casida, unaffiliated (independent) candidate for U.S. House, Colorado District Three answered the following questions for the Liberty Candidates application (http://libertycandidates.com).
From their website, "LibertyCandidates.com is a not-for-profit non-partisan organization formed to assist voters in finding candidates who will uphold the standards of Liberty in office."
I) Re. the U.S. Financial System:
1. What is your view of the monetary system in the U.S. today?
I believe that our monetary system is inherently flawed and that the reason is because of unconstitutional acts as well as vested interests from people in high positions of power. I believe that strong monetary policy reforms must take place in order to efficiently, effectively and sustainably take care of our past debt as well as our current deficit and future obligations. I also believe that all of this is possible with the will of the people, coming from the local community level, all the way up to the presidency.
2. What corrective actions could we take right now to improve the economy?
I would work to restore laws back to those that are constitutional in nature; I would also work to create a level "playing field" for people concerning our economic abilities. In order to do this effectively, I believe there are several laws that should be nullified at the state level or repealed at the federal level. I also believe that we must create a sound money supply so that people are able to actually prosper and create wealth. To do this we would need drastic changes with our current monetary and fiscal policy. We must have sound money to be able to prosper, save, and create wealth. We must also maintain our liberty to be able to freely exist and make choices that will affect the economy. The preservation of these two things would significantly benefit our economic well-being. If we have a sound currency, we can continue to work on our fiscal policies and the elimination of wasteful bureaucracies/red-tape that choke entrepreneurs and small-businesses.
3. Do you agree with the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to solve the financial crisis? If not, what could the Fed have done differently?
I disagree with their actions - they are against sound economic principles and the problems they are trying to "fix" (even though it is impossible to have the heavy hand "fixing" anything) are being fixed with the problems themselves - which means that they are not fixing the problem (e.g., inflation - they cannot fix inflation by "quantitative easing", which pumps more money into the supply, which would cause inflation). I disagree with their actions upon our currency and I also disagree with their lack of transparency. The Federal Reserve and U.S. government should not have “bailed out” any failing enterprise (nothing is too big to fail) and they should not have loaned/given funds to any foreign entities.
4. Should the Federal Reserve be audited fully, no secrets, or does it need to keep some information under wraps?
Yes, it should fully be audited and kept in check by the United States Congress. I believe that the Constitutional solution would be for Congress to control the quantity of money circulated – not the Federal Reserve, and have this information viewable to our representatives as well as the public. I believe that if the Federal Reserve continues to operate that all of their actions should be transparent and held in check by Congress.
5. What are your thoughts on government debt? Do you believe it is acceptable for the Federal Government to raise the debt ceiling? If yes, for what reason?
I believe that at some point our debt-to-assets ratio will cause many individuals and property-owners (through commodity values and stock market fluctuations, as well as actual land-values) to lose much of their wealth, that they believe they have, because of the “propped up” Federal Reserve Note (US$) that is fiat and backed by nothing but paper. Since this is the case, and since there appears to not be enough assets to back up taking on “more debt” (our Federal Reserve Notes are not “backed” by anything – I do not believe it is acceptable for the Federal Government to raise the debt ceiling.
II) Re. Foreign Policy:
1. What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?
I believe in peace, however, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to protect the United States from foreign threats. That being said, I do not believe it is possible to protect this country from foreign threats by "invading" countries that may have threats against us. I believe that our national security should start at our borders - not in others. I believe that we should be using funds for our own economic well-being, not starting more wars.
2. How should we fight a “war on terror”?
We cannot fight a war on a concept – it is impossible. There will likely always be people roaming the planet who are terrorists. We can work to protect the lives of innocent Americans by engaging in sound monetary policies that do not harm us and do not harm other countries that we do business with. Prosperous economies are peaceful ones – you cannot fight terror, but you can strengthen the well-being of your people.
3. Should the U.S. occupy other countries? If not, would you push to close all bases? Are there any you would keep open?
No, I believe that we should not occupy other countries. I would push to eliminate our presence via our bases/military instillations, and I would have to concur with officials at some level to make a determination of how many (if any) bases should remain open and for how long those bases should remain open.
4. Should the U.S. maintain its standing army?
Yes, our Republic should always maintain a standing army to protect our country from foreign threats. But safeguards should be in place to make sure that Homeland Security and federal agencies never allow the military or military force to be used or taken against American citizens.
5. Is the Patriot Act necessary to protect America? If not, would you vote to repeal it?
No, the Patriot Act is not necessary to protect America and yes, I would vote to repeal it. I believe that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and is doing nothing to protect Americans from ‘terrorism’.
III) Re. Personal Liberty:
1. What information may the U.S. government legally gather about its citizens? When would it be necessary to overstep those boundaries?
I do not think it is legal for the U.S. government to gather any information on its citizens. I do not think it is ever necessary to overstep those boundaries because I believe that local and state governments can do a fine job of keeping track of its citizens – whether it is to maintain drivers’ licenses in those states or to charge someone with a crime – the federal government does not need to use force or collect information on U.S. citizens. If there are ‘crimes’ committed by American citizens – it is the job and executive role of the County Sheriff to arrest American citizens – not any federal agency. This is a protection against and unruly and unjust federal government that may try to eliminate habeas corpus.
2. What limits, if any, should be placed on the U.S. government’s ability to search its citizens without a warrant?
The U.S. government should not be able to search its citizens without a warrant and without the permission of the county sheriff where those citizens may be – the Fourth Amendment protects our natural and unalienable right to be secure in our persons and property against searches and seizures – the Fourth Amendment limits the U.S. government’s ability to do this.
3. Ought the U.S. government be allowed to protect its citizens’ health by outlawing foods it considers unsafe, or to force medicate (i.e., fluoridation) or force vaccinate citizens?
NO – people have the natural-born right to decide what they put into or take out of their bodies – government should have absolutely no control or use of force concerning what we eat, drink, or put into our bodies otherwise. You cannot protect citizens’ health – people have their own personal responsibility and free will that they must use to protect their health. They must make those choices for themselves.
4. What controls, if any, should be placed on the right to own a gun? Is there an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals without encroaching on the rights of free, law-abiding citizens?
There should be NO federal controls or regulation on gun-ownership. Registration of owning a gun could take place at the State levels (which I do not believe will no anything to actually protect people) and States could decide if there is any regulation for that, however, there should be no regulations at the State or local level that hinder law-abiding citizens (constitutional law – not administrative or statutory law) from owning and carrying their guns since the Second Amendment protects our natural and unalienable right to bear arms and protect ourselves and our property. The most effective means to keep guns out of the hands of ‘madmen’ and criminals is to make sure everyone who is not a criminal has a means to protect himself or herself. Bad people will always find a way to get a weapon – the best thing to do is to have them knowing that they are up against a well-armed citizenry.
IV) Re. U.S. Sovereignty:
1. Is our involvement in and subjugation to global organizations, such as WHO, NATO, the UN, etc., a benefit to U.S. citizens?
NO - it is of no benefit to U.S. citizens and infringes upon our sovereignty. I have no issues or problems with global trade and the global communications that open up opportunities and empower people, however, I believe that the sovereignty of the United States of America and its citizens is paramount to any type of global effort - regardless of the nature of that global effort.
2. Would you work to repeal international agreements that purport to hold U.S. citizens and/or property under its jurisdiction, or do you think there might be times when benefits outweigh concessions?
Yes, I would work to repeal any international agreements that harm the sovereignty and property of U.S. citizens. No, there are no times that the benefits outweigh the concessions. There is no price for liberty; there can be no concessions on liberty that are of any benefit to humankind. Ever.
3. Are trade agreements with other nations, i.e., NAFTA, CAFTA, good for U.S. citizens?
I believe that any interference in the marketplace can be harmful and that when concessions or rules are made to benefit one group, there are other groups that stand to not benefit or be harmed by such. A level playing field for all, especially in the marketplace, are a key to increasing efficiencies and ridding the market of people/companies/countries that do not do good things for their consumers or constituents. As of today, I do not believe that NAFTA or CAFTA have benefitted us any more than when we did not have these agreements.
4. Should the U.S. give foreign aid to other countries? If yes, for what purposes would it be justified? If not all countries, which would you continue to support?
This is a complex topic. First of all, if foreign aid is defined as “arms” or weapons then NO – no there should be absolutely no foreign aid of this manner. If foreign aid is defined as food, shelter, or other non-violent products and services, I would say we need to evaluate the effectiveness of this aid to see whether or not we continue to do this. My gut feeling is that private companies and non-profit organizations could fulfill the needs of foreign aid (productive foreign aid, like food, water, and shelter) in a much more effective and efficient manner, and at the same time spur positive local economic development in our own country as well as overseas. I believe we are justified to help other nations with food, water, and shelter when there is a natural disaster, however, there are many agencies that could use money donated by willing individuals versus from everyone’s taxpayer money. Considering the United States is broke, these private charities, companies and non-profits would be better suited to do that right now.
5. Do you know what nullification is? If yes, how do you plan to use it?
Yes – it is the ability of State and even local governments to “nullify” or get rid of unconstitutional federal laws. I will work with State and local representatives to find solutions to laws using nullification. I will build networks of people in these levels of government to protect individuals’ natural rights.
V) Re. State Sovereignty:
1. When does state law take precedent over federal law?
Every time – states’ rights come before federal rights and keep our federal government in check.
2. Would you stand up to the federal government and demand that it stay within the bounds of its enumerated powers and out of state business?
Yes, that is why I am running for Congress – as a representative of my State.
3. Do federal officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes?
No, States and County Sheriffs have the final say-so in who is arrested in their jurisdiction.
VI) Illegal Immigration:
1. What do you see as the #1 problem with illegal immigration?
That it is illegal and that there should have been measures taken long ago to allow immigration, but to make sure that it is efficient and possible for people to immigrate here legally. Individuals who come here to work in this country often do so out of love for their family – and it is our job to make sure there is an efficient way for them to do that, and to become a citizen of this country. Using draconian measures of force against people who are already here won’t solve any of our economic problems – if we fixed those – this would not be such an issue to many people. And, less bureaucracy in the federal government would actually start to solve the immigration problem on its own. There are ways to fix this, and to do good things for Americans and immigrants who want to live and work in this country.
2. What actions could we take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?
I believe that all of our social services need serious reform, however, the best step to take is to make sure that there is an equal playing ground for all citizens to benefit from these services that are paid for by taxpayer. That being said, people should be citizens of this country to receive any type of aid or assistance provided by social services. I believe that with the reforms that will have to take place with social services, that these social services will change so as to be much more difficult to receive and people will have to make more decisions for themselves (e.g. take personal responsibility to save for one’s health and retirement and when people do need a “hand-up”, that there are non-profits and charities to help). Tax reform and drug policy should be an integral part of this debate.
VII) Misc. Questions:
1. If you could make one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?
I would actually repeal the 17th Amendment because it weakens states’ power and pulse on issues and decisions that should be made at a state level instead of a federal level. If I had to add another amendment, right now it appears like the most pressing issue is the budget, so I would like to see a Balanced Budget Amendment – although this concept should really be common sense for our representatives.
2. Would you vote to end government subsidies to private industry?
Yes, subsidies make an unfair playing ground. Subsidies interfere with the marketplace and do not let bad goods and services fail, like they should, to ensure low prices and high quality goods and services to the consumer. Subsidies are a crutch – it doesn’t matter whom they are going to, they are only a temporary aid and detrimental to another group/population who does not receive them.
3. What should our government’s action be against Julian Assange, if any?
None, it is the power of free-press – the first amendment defined.
4. Do you know what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and the Communitarian agenda is? Do you support it? Why or why not?
I know enough to understand that it undermines people’s individual free wills that are an inherent part of our country’s liberty. No, I do not support it. “Sustainability” and making positive choices that benefit our planet MUST come from the individual in the marketplace, they cannot be mandated, legislated, demanded or enforced. Coercive and organized action in the name of any subject is wrong – it is fear-based – and it will not reside with people’s desire to be free. I support people making their own individual choices as to how they live and interact – there should not be any national or global organization that can mandate and order someone to take action in the name of anything.
More about the Candidate: Your Name: Tisha Casida
Office you seek: U.S House of Representatives
District: Third Congressional District
PRIMARY DATE: June 2014
* I do not have a primary challenger - I am running Unaffiliated/Independent Mailing Address: PO 8944 Aspen, CO 81612
Pledges I have signed: National Association for Gun Rights, Voluntary U.S. House Term Limits Declaration (will sign once on ballot)
Endorsed By: Dr. Ron Paul told her audience on September 24, 2013 to send Tisha to Washington (http://youtu.be/unYKrYEKxyg), Blue Republican/Robin Koerner
Phone Number: 719-252-1763 Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
For more information, please visit www.casida2014.com
Contact: Steve Thompson