- Alternative Energy
- Balanced Budget
- Congressional Term Limits
- Death Penalty
- Defund Planned Parenthood
- Electoral College
- Gun Violence
- Healthcare and the ACA
- Housing in America
- Immigration Reform
- Integrity in Government
- Legalization of Marijuana
- Modernization of the United States Armed Forces
- National Security
- North Korea
- Nuclear Weapons
- Police Brutality
- Privatization of Prison Systems
- Real ID Act of 2005
- Religious Protections
- Same Sex Marriage
- Social Security
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
When you were a candidate for Congress a few years back you were involved with a group of women who are fighting against Bayer... something about a permanent abortion procedure.
Yes. At the time, I promised these ladies and their families that when I had the authority to influence this issue, to defend those that could not defend themselves, I would. I will keep that promise when I get into office.
What is your position on abortion?
I am pro-life... pure and simple. I believe life begins at conception. In fact, there is credible scientific evidence that supports this position. I will always stand on the side of life. ALWAYS!
I've heard you mention that you are in favor of alternative energy sources? Would you care to elaborate?
Yes I would! Absolutely! The oil industry has had a significant foothold in the United States throughout America's history. In recent years, traditional oil drilling has taken a back seat to other technologies that include horizontal drilling and fracking. The latter is probably the practice that has resulted in the single largest ecological footprint.
When I was Mayor, I had to daily deal with the effects of earthquakes caused as a direct result of fracking in those areas. For those that don't know, I'll give you my layman's definition of fracking. Traditional oil extraction retrieves only a small part of the oil in an oil well. Fracking is the use of chemicals, water or liquid waste that is pumped into the ground, which causes the remainder of the oil or sludge to be drawn or pushed toward the surface for extraction and eventual processing.
The problem occurs when the injection of liquids and chemicals into the earth's crust causes the plates to move against or into each other. It's an obvious reaction to a given action. If you displace rock plates with chemicals or other foreign elements, this will force the rock plates to move, often violently, which of course causes earthquakes.
When I was mayor, the State of Oklahoma had more earthquakes than any other place on the planet, including California! That statistic really surprised me. Some days we would have several significant earthquakes in a single day. In addition, my city had another unique problem that I believe was a direct result of fracking... radioactive elements in our drinking water.
My city is not the only one dealing with similar issues. That being said, America cannot continue on its current path. It is not ecologically or economically sustainable. I strongly favor alternative energy sources including wind and solar. Such sources are clean, renewable and will leave a much smaller footprint on our life-sustaining environment.
I have a plan that would include the development of a large solar farm that would have zero impact on the environment. I'll be sharing that information as we get further along in this campaign. Thanks for asking this very important question.
I've read that you've talked about a balanced budget.
Yes I have. We will submit a proposal for a mandatory balanced budget to the United States Congress within my first sixty days in office. The United States government must learn to live within its means and I think the American people expect no less from us. There you have it. I think the American people are ready for bold but obtainable ideas and sound leadership. So, we'll get it done, together!
What is your position on term limits?
A large reason why our government has the complicated problems that it now faces is because too many of our Congressional members have made the office a career; versus opening their seats up for new and possibly better ideas. Term limitations should be immediately put in place. As an example, members of the House of Representatives should be permitted to serve no longer than three consecutive terms in office, while members of the United States Senate should be permitted to serve no more than two consecutive terms in office. The current restriction on the President should remain in place. This opens the door for fresh ideas and avoids the current problem of entrenched career politicians.
FROM A POTENTIAL SUPPORTER: I want to support you but I'd like to know your position on the death penalty.
First, thank you for your support. You make all the difference. This is one question that I really had to think deeply about. As strange as it may sound, when I say I'm pro-life, I mean it with the full weight of the statement. That being said, I can't answer the question without first creating a framework for my answer. So, here goes. I have publicly stated my opposition to private prisons. My concern is that privatized prisons are motivated by dollars... after all they are a for-profit industry and that's not the purpose of a prison. Prisons should have two purposes and two purposes only... one to punish and two to rehabilitate.
I'm not naive to think that everyone can be rehabilitated and that's not what I'm suggesting. There are many in prison that are there for punishment only due to the nature of their crimes. That being said, the prison system should be operated by either state or federal government authorities. With respect to the death penalty itself, my biggest concern is the execution of prisoners that are later determined to be innocent. You can't hit undo or backspace. If an individual is executed and later on is found to be innocent, an apology to the family just will not do. But, I must add another element to this conundrum; the Word of God, which says that the government, which in this case would include the police, are all ministers of God to us for our good.
Any time a life hangs in the balance, it will represent a challenge for me because I care so deeply for and have such a high regard for life. So, whether I support the death penalty or not, giving the answer is much more difficult than offering the question.
A study from Newsweek  said, "Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed."
Therein lies the problem with the system as we know it today. So, the only way that I would ever say, without hesitation, that I support the death penalty is if the system can absolutely guarantee the guilt of that individual. If you can without question, offer a one hundred percent guarantee that this person is worthy of death, according to the law, then I would stand in full support of the law. That's not likely to ever happen. No error percentage is acceptable. No life taken in error will ever be acceptable to me as president or as a man. Period!
1 "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
Do you support the Trump administration's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood?
Yes and no! The House version of the GOP attempt to repeal and replace the ACA calls for a one year restriction. I support a total and complete permanent ban on the use of federal funds for any entity including Planned Parenthood, who either sponsors, endorses or participates in the practice of abortion.
Rumor has it that you stated opposition to the Electoral College. Care to comment?
Sure. I support elimination of the Electoral College in favor of a system that counts and acknowledges each vote equally regardless of which state the vote is cast. This last election saw an upset directly attributed to voter districts that favored the Republican Party. Obviously, I want to see a system that is not rigged or slighted in any way, whether it be based upon party or even race... and I'm in no way suggesting this one is. But, the very fact that we have so-called red states and blue states suggests to me that there is an imbalance in how the system is run. I want to see a system where the person that receives the most votes overall, wins... PERIOD! With the electoral college, that is not true, as this last election and others in recent memory have taught us.
One final point, in the last election, the two major candidates spent two thirds of their time in 9 states, out of 50. What does that tell you?
There are those that suggest global warming is a hoax... what is your position on the environment?
I am a supporter of maintaining the beautiful green-space in our country. It is important to set aside funding to support and maintain our coasts, our forests and our nations water resources. President Trump has written a number of potentially harmful EO's recently including one that removes Obama era restrictions concerning the dumping of hazardous wastes from coal mines into our water. I contend that his motives are questionable. When the decisions made by the Trump administration clearly benefit "corporate America", then those decisions must be questioned. The environment is a gift, from God, to the people. I believe we have a duty to preserve it. I am not anti-development... but I am pro-people and pro-environment.
UPDATE: Yesterday, President Trump announced his intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord. I think this is a dangerous decision based upon political position. It is a blatant affront to and attack against the policies of his predecessor, Barack Obama. That's not leadership, particularly when the decision will ultimately have negative world impacting repercussions.
What plans do you have to deal with gun violence in America?
I'm glad you asked the question. I've included a bullet pointed list showing my plan for combating the growing epidemic of gun related violence in America.
- Mandatory mental health evaluation prior to purchasing gun
- Ban all assault weapons or automatic capable weapons
- Ban on all high-capacity magazines
- Required enforcement of the Baker Act
- Raise the minimum age on all firearms to 25
- Mandatory gun free zones within a certain proximity of schools, churches, hotels, shopping malls, parks and public events
- Do not favor arming teachers
- Do not favor militarizing schools
- Must be licensed to own any firearm, which must be renewed annually much like a driver’s license
- Psychiatric evaluation by a licensed mental health professional required to first obtain license
- If a legally owned and properly secured gun is used by someone else such as family member to commit a crime, the owner can be held criminally responsible for the actions of that individual
- Illegal for media organizations to announce the perpetrators name more than one time. News coverage should focus on the victims and not the perpetrators
A mental health professional who warranties an individual to be eligible for licensing to carry or own a firearm cannot be held liable for any actions by the owner of that firearm. The very worst thing we can do is what Congress along with the president have done... they've talked about it in public venues but at the end of the day, when the talking stops, NOTHING IS DONE BUT TALK!
It's time for action... REAL ACTION! One more life stolen because of another coward with a gun is one more life too many!
What is your position on the GOP efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare?
I have made a number of detailed statements on this issue in the last few weeks or so and my position remains unchanged. The GOP, under the leadership of President Trump, is clearly moving forward with their agenda to undermine everything that was achieved under the previous administration including the so-called repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
What the GOP has presented in terms of a replacement, will actually cost 24 million Americans, their healthcare coverage. In many cases that loss will be catastrophic.
I'm deeply angered that members of our government are following a political course at the expense of those that daily depend upon having access to life-sustaining medical care!
I call on each of our government leaders to put country before party. When the CBO runs its numbers, at the end of the day, zero Americans should be without healthcare coverage... somewhat like a Medicare for all, single-payer plan.
Just do the right thing!
A few months ago, Dr. Ben Carson, in his first address as Secretary of HUD compared slavery to immigration. Any comments?
Can you say $6.2 BILLION?! That's the amount of money that Donald John Trump has proposed cutting from the federal budget in spite of the fact his HUD secretary states "no one is going to be thrown out on the street". He also said, "the infrastructure bill that is being worked on has a significant inclusion of housing in it". Both statements are entirely false!
I know Dr. Carson and I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear that he doesn't even have a plan for running his agency! Needless to say, I was very disappointed that someone of his stature actually equated slavery in America with immigration. No wonder he's been so silent since that gaffe.
This administration's entire focus has proven to be enriching the wealthy on the backs of the rest of us, the less infamous 99%. That does not serve America and neither does it represent what is best for Americans!
Recently, President Trump announced plans to seek $1 trillion for America's infrastructure. Do you support this?
Can I just be honest? Anytime, I see news that Mr. Trump has proposed something I have to check out the fine print... how does he benefit from it? I'm sorry but that's just me being honest.
That being said, I will always support an infrastructure package that is carefully laid out, one that is fiscally responsible and that actually benefits our nation's crumbling infrastructure from roads to bridges to our water resources to our electric grid and of course, to our energy sources. Case in point, a few months back a major bridge on Interstate 85 collapsed. A few years back we saw the same thing occur up north. Some years before that, the floating bridge that crosses over Lake Washington, which happens to also be an interstate highway, sunk. In Oklahoma City about a year ago, a main bridge that goes over a primary intersection in the city, collapsed.
Unclassified reports that I've read suggest that rogue nations such as North Korea are most capable of launching an attack against our electric grid. That's a huge problem that I've heard nothing but talk about. The ability of a nation to enter our country using cyber weapons carries with it catastrophic implications! They already have that capability and who is doing anything about it?!!!
Decrepit bridges, crumbling roads and highways, and even our nation's antiquated electric grid are all begging for attention. When I was mayor, my city was cited because of radionuclides in our city's drinking water. You've no doubt heard about the ongoing issue of lead in the drinking water in Flint, Michigan.
This is not a political problem! At this point, it's a moral one. If we continue to do nothing but talk, many lives could easily be lost! That, my friend, makes it a moral problem that circumvents politics!
From my perspective, in most cases when a politician mentions infrastructure it's for political gain. It's almost a political catch phrase... that's how you win elections!
But, how often have you seen the money actually answer the need? So, money was earmarked for a particular project; was the project completed? Whose district benefited from the earmark and what politician had his palms greased as a result?
My answer to your question? Absolutely! The most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet should not have the kinds of infrastructure problems that we have and yes, I support an infrastructure investment that actually occurs; one that actually does more than just talk and does much more than places a band-aid on the problem!
You didn't ask but I do have an infrastructure plan that includes addressing all of the issues I just mentioned. One key element of my plan is to take advantage of an untapped resource in America that would create jobs, provide an alternative energy resource while leaving a near zero footprint in our nation's environment. We'll have to talk about that in more detail later. But the real deal is this... putting country before position.
One of the selling points of President Trump's campaign was immigration. He boasted that he was going to build a wall along our southern border and make Mexico pay for it.
What is your position on immigration reform and the president's zero tolerance policy?
The United States was established as a light to the world. The Statue of Liberty was a beckoning symbol of hope for many who saw America as a land of opportunity.
According to the US Parks Service, her torch is a symbol of enlightenment, illuminating the way to freedom "showing us the path to liberty". Even the Statue's official name represents her most important symbol, "Liberty Enlightening the World".
This administration's zero tolerance policy rejects the concept of liberty and embraces a policy of exclusivity. That's not American! In the manner we've seen it carried out, it has stretched the limits of human tolerance and dignity.
I support strong borders and the usage of technological, electronic systems including satellites to monitor borders and border access points.
As president I will order an immediate comprehensive assessment of our borders and ports with recommendations due on my desk within 30 days after I assume the presidency.
The assessment should include a comprehensive review of manpower levels to determine how best to utilize those resources as well as our electronic assets. In addition, we will carefully assess whether any further adjustments should be made to the borders including our east and west port access points. Once completed, I will take our plan to the United States Congress for consideration and implementation.
We must evaluate our current systems and their effectiveness comparative to the end goal, which is the safety and security of all the citizens of the United States, mitigating the flow of illegal narcotics and guns as well as the swift stoppage of human trafficking across our southern borders. Additionally, we'll be targeting felons and gang members to assure they cannot enter our country.
This administration has labeled everyone of Hispanic origin as "criminals, drug dealers and rapists". In one recent speech, Mr. Trump referred to Hispanics "infesting" our nation. This is a blot, yet another stain on America and we will have a lot of work to do to erase it.
I do support a pathway to citizenship for individuals who have been productive members of American society for 7 years or longer. This is an overly used cliché, but we really are a nation made up primarily of immigrants, with a few notable exceptions.
Here's the bottom line... if we don't fix our nation's immigration crisis, and it is a crisis, then we need to return the Statue of Liberty!
The today news is filled with headlines about lingering questions concerning President Trump and ethical considerations regarding his businesses, collusion with the Russian leader, and a host of others. Your thoughts?
That's a great question and I'm glad you asked it. Going back to when Mr. Trump was still candidate Trump I've had concerns about things he was saying... not even talking about his past... everybody has a past; but rather about what he was saying at that time and the foolishness he's continued to stir up since he's been in office!
But one thing has stood out... I have never heard him accept accountability for any of it. Integrity does not denote perfection. But it does require accountability.
An article in today's USA Today states that Donald Trump has the largest credibility gap of any president since Richard Nixon.
That's a problematic comparative, which is no surprise. We're talking about a president that said so many things during the campaign but after he was elected he said, "those were campaign promises". Campaign promises? What I say I'm going to do should be propagated by what's in my heart. Campaign or no campaign... I believe what I believe and those things will not change. What I say I'm going to do... you can take to the bank. Integrity? I stand on my own personal convictions and you have the right to expect me to honor my word! Period! I'm not perfect but I am accountable!
What is your position on American support of Israel?
The nation of Israel is one of our important allies, not just in the Middle East, but in all the world. I strongly support maintaining and building upon our ties with Israel including moving our embassy to Jerusalem.
How can we put America back to work?
For many years large American corporations have been shipping jobs to other nations because the labor costs are lower and restrictions are fewer. In order to put America back to work we need to make it easier and less expensive for corporations to do business in America. We need to encourage new business by removing the red tape for start up companies.
QUESTION FROM A POTENTIAL SUPPORTER: Where do you stand on the legalization of marijuana?
I'm undecided. According to current federal law, marijuana is considered a controlled substance and is illegal.
Recent reports have suggested major deficiencies in the readiness of our armed forces and the equipment that they rely upon to protect our nation.
That's a valid point and I've read some of the same reports. As president, my approach to military readiness and the use of our armed forces will be starkly different from Mr. Trump. I believe in the concept, walk quietly or softly but carry a big stick. The United States power is well documented. We do not have to carry ourselves with the bully posturing the Mr. Trump has chosen to demonstrate.
That being said, I want to immediately address the deficiencies defined in those reports. Our soldiers will have the most modern, highly-developed, technologically-based equipment available... anywhere. But and it's important that you understand the but... But, we will not be on a war footing and this is not a build up to a war or strike anywhere in the world. Rather, if the time ever comes and I don't expect it to happen anytime during my presidency, if I'm so honored to be elected, if the time comes I want our men and women to have the best most effective equipment available to them. I also want our scientists to design and the DOD to employ robotic options to be deployed in high risk situations.
Another point too... and I think this is very important. In the past, it has been the policy of the DOD to leave massive amounts of weapons and ammunition on the battlefield. This will stop immediately. Any weaponry or other military equipment transported to the battlefield, will be removed from the battlefield and returned to the United States. I've read far too many accounts of American weapons that are left on the battlefield, later being used against Americans. That is not acceptable!
What about the issue of national security?
The 2016 campaign was evidence that national security is an issue is problematic. I was deeply troubled by the assertion of apparent ties between then presidential candidate Trump and Vladimir Putin. One of the primary duties of the president is to protect the citizens of our nation from other nations or entities that might hope to do us harm. Thus, his first responsibility is to America.
In the 2016 election, Donald Trump famously said that NATO is obsolete and then backtracked on that position during a press conference with the NATO Secretary General. Do you agree with the president?
That's an interesting question. Donald Trump said a number of things during the 2016 campaign. As you may recall, after the election Mr. Trump actually backtracked on a number of statements that he made during the campaign, labeling them as "campaign promises". I'm not sure how his supporters are letting him get away with an obvious lie but, a political campaign is how candidates present our resumes and should detail a list of commitments... I don't like to use the term promise. I prefer to call them commitments. Each commitment carries with it the full weight of the character of the person making it, whether it's being made during a campaign or in general.
NATO was established in 1949 as a military alliance of North American and European nations to together counter an attack by the Soviet Union. All that being said, NATO is not obsolete. NATO is an expression of the military will and commitment of all the allied nations to support and defend one another. It would be arrogance to think that any nation, including the United States, could stand alone against any enemy, warding off an attack against our homeland. We are obligated to stand for and with each other.
How would you address the North Korean problem and the increasingly aggressive posturing of Kim Jong-un?
I am deeply concerned about the threats and provocations by the North Korean regime. Unfortunately, because of the sensitive nature of the matter, I will not make a comment about any specific strategies in mitigating this problem other than to say I would do what needs to be done to protect America and American interests... period. My decision would be preceded by consultation with our military officials in the field as well as with congressional leaders. The representatives of the American people would not be kept in the dark.
I strongly oppose the autocratic approach to the problem that has become so commonplace under the current administration.
I support talks between South Korea and North Korea. From the information that I have been privy to, I'm not convinced that North Korea currently poses a real threat to America or American interests. Thus, any talks should be pursued without any preconditions.
A caveat to any type of "talks" would be mitigation of the human rights issues in North Korea.
If military action were required, and the only case I could foresee such a scenario is, in the case of a launch at the United States or any of it's allies, the United States would mitigate the problem. I have confidence that we have enough firepower to address the problem, if necessary.
Afterward, I would go before the American people and provide a detailed explanation of what transpired, what options were available, what action I selected and the reason for taking the action. One thing that I will never do is to engage in the sabre rattling and I will never use the news or social media to mitigate the issue.
As I've stated before, we will move America and the world back from the brink of nuclear holocaust. These weapons of mass destruction were easily the most heinous inventions of modern time and at some point, I will propose that we work toward putting the genie back in the bottle, with the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons.
What is your position on the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
The problem with a nuclear confrontation is there are no winners. I support the reduction and eventual destruction of all nuclear weapons on the planet.
If and until that happens, America should maintain it's nuclear enterprise at the highest state of readiness at all times. This should include modernizing our nuclear payloads, targeting capabilities, launch apparatus, and all other systems to assure that we can not just meet but counter any nuclear attack from any nation.
Additionally, all personnel will be thoroughly trained and constantly tested to assure their proficiency in meeting the highest standards of excellence and professionalism.
QUESTION FROM A SUPPORTER: What is your position on police brutality?
That's a valid question. I am proud to be able to say in wearing a badge for 17 years I never fired my weapon against a human being. Interesting that this subject comes up now, but I was in a conversation with an aide with respect to extensive police training on how to de-escalate a situation. In fact, passing classes that instruct all police officers how to de-escalate a situation should be required.
I came up in a day when deadly force was the very last option. In fact, I can count on two hands the number of times I ever even removed my weapon from its holster during duty. I place a great deal of emphasis on the term public service and that has to be the approach of any government entity whether it's law enforcement, executive, legislative or judicial. Your concerns will carry a great deal of weight in my campaign and beyond.
There has been some question about the efficacy of a private prison system. What is your position and what should we expect from your administration?
I am concerned that the privatization of the prison system is the impetus to prisoner abuses all for profit. The prison system should be less of a human housing entity and more about a program that is focused on the rehabilitation of offenders of the law. After an offender has successfully served the legally imposed sentence, all of their rights should be restored, thus giving them a viable opportunity to continue that program of rehabilitation. The imposed punishment should not continue beyond the walls of their sentence.
You recently asked your supporters if what they know about the Real ID Act. Inquiring minds want to know your position on the law.
The Real ID Act of 2005 undermines former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt's legacy and further, reneges on America's commitment to the world, which was embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris.
Article 14 of the declaration offers protection of the rights of individuals to seek asylum when they are in fear of persecution related to religious affiliation, race, national origin, membership in a covered social group or political perspective. As written, The Real ID Act makes a mockery of that right because it requires those seeking asylum to document or demonstrate that one of those enumerated grounds is a central reason for their persecution.
An individual who cannot thus substantiate the persecution is subject to arrest, deportation and forcible return to that same repressive regime, where they will potentially face even worse persecution or even death. Interestingly, they come to the United States fleeing repression and are subject to an oppression regime in what they thought was a land of hope and freedom... this regime then forcibly returns them to the land from which they fled!
The Real ID Act not only violates the Universal Declaration but, much more deeply, mocks America's longstanding claim of being a beacon of hope, of freedom and of democracy for those who have been subject to life under the thumb of tyrants and of dictators.
By sending such a harsh message to those seeking asylum on our shores, Donald Trump, The Real ID Act and those that support similar rules and protocols are undermining the assertion that the United States is in fact a haven of safety from repressive regimes.
Sadly, on the very day that such repressive rules of law become a new beacon for America, The Statute of Liberty ought to shed a tear.
What protections would your administration offer America's believers?
The United States Constitution provides certain religious protections in that the government has no right or authority to infringe upon or inhibit those deeply held “religious” beliefs. Any law or edict imposed by a government entity that denies those religious rights is therefore unconstitutional. We will stand firmly upon constitutional protections. Does that answer it?
The Obama administration was responsible for promoting an agenda that has now made same sex marriage legal in the United States. What is your position?
They don't have to answer to me and they certainly don't have to answer to the federal government. Simply put, we are dumping the labels.
The President of the United States recently announced his intent to cut Social Security. What is your position on these developments?
Social Security is an entitlement. It is a depository of funds that every taxpaying worker has paid into, involuntarily, I might add. I see Social Security as an investment into our retirement future and thus, we are entitled to receive what we've deposited into it upon eligibility for those funds. So, I have a question for you. Why are most that apply to receive their duly earned benefits turned down the first time and for some... the second or even third time? That is a problem!
If you go to the bank and make a deposit, when you return to the bank to withdraw your money, you reasonably expect to withdraw what you've deposited plus earned interest.
The largest majority of our nation's debt is owed to Social Security, to the tune of approximately $2.8 trillion. So, here is what will happen after I become our nation's president.
I will demand that the money borrowed out of social security by previous administrations or by Congress, be returned, with interest! The money does not belong to the politicians... it belongs to the taxpayers that have deposited it.
I will never submit a budget that calls for any cuts to Social Security. I will however work very diligently to make sure that the funds deposited into social security are there for those that come of age, or are otherwise eligible by law to receive them, and can in fact receive them with no delay.
What is your position on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
As president, I would reaffirm the United States adoption and adherence to the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without amendment.
Our nation has seen its share of wars in the last twenty years or so. You've recently made the comment that President Trump has us on a war footing, so obviously those leaving military service will need a lot of care, potentially. How would you handle the growing number of veterans that need help?
First and foremost, I find it a bit ironic and troubling that the man that has our nation poised to open the nuclear envelope, has no military experience!
I am a Vietnam era veteran. In my day, nobody thanked us for the work we did... for putting our lives on the line. In fact, I'll never forget the time, that a Colorado State Patrolman threw my badge at me like it was dirt. We knew nothing but disrespect in those days. Today, many folks will actually take the time to thank our nation's veterans for their service. I know I do. If I see a booth at WalMart or what have you, that is manned by veterans, I'll donate something. I'll do whatever I can to help and to thank them.
Today's veterans have another problem that I can't seem to wrap my mind around... that is the large number of veterans that rely upon food assistance. I met a veteran about ten years ago who was a sniper in Iraq. During his tour of duty he was wounded and had to fight just to get treatment for his injuries, which resulted in his discharge from service. On top of that, he was living in a hotel. That was all he and his wife could afford. The United States of America does not do nearly enough to at least partially recompense our veterans for what they've sacrificed for us. Not even close!
No veteran should ever... and I mean it should NEVER HAPPEN... should never be homeless or hungry. Another issue which is close to me... is the fact that veterans have to fight to receive their compensatory benefits. The system is slow and inefficient. So, I have a few ideas of how to address those problems. Here's just a few ideas I have.
We need to provide retraining (if necessary) and employment of veterans at the Veterans Administration facilities. This is a huge untapped resource. As I stated before, no honorably discharged veteran should be homeless or hungry. No veteran or service member should ever have to rely on food stamps to feed his or her family. I would order an immediate pay increase, across the board, for all enlisted and non-commissioned personnel.
That's a start, but we must do more than just talk about the problem and a Band-Aid won't fix it. As President, I will present a concise, detailed plan on how to address the problem.