The candidate’s comments on news or life
Over 100 signatures were submitted to various county registrars on or before February 20th, with our signature-in-lieu-of filing fee petition. Once confirmed valid, every one of these signatures can be used to meet the requirements for the nominating petition, which only requires 65 signatures. Therefore it is very likely that enough valid signatures have been obtained to meet the minimum nominating requirements.
My sincere thanks to all those who help gather and turn in signatures.
Among the natural and inalienable rights recognized by the California Constitution is the right of “defending life and liberty.” While that document includes no express “right to keep and bear arms” in the manner proclaimed by the United States Constitution, the California Constitution does recognize, in Article 1, Section 24, that “this declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.”
It is apparent that under natural law and consistent with the U.S. Constitution, the right to keep and bear weapons necessary for defense is an inseparable part of the right to defend life and liberty. So long as violent predators have access to firearms, the peaceful citizens of this state cannot constitutionally be deprived of their only means of effective defense against an armed attacker, which is a firearm of at least equal effectiveness to that wielded by the attacker.
Over the years, the state legislature has passed many detailed regulations and restrictions on weapons owners and dealers. As Attorney General, I would not charge any person with a mere possession, transactional or registration violation of weapons laws, except in cases where the weapon is actually being used to further a crime with an actual victim. The scarce resources of the Attorney General must be preserved for prosecuting actual crimes, not politically expedient bans on possessing, trading, or transporting items reasonably necessary and useful for self-defense by otherwise peaceful and law-abiding citizens.
BitCoin and other forms of digital currency represent a new and growing industry with the potential to greatly benefit California residents. It’s become so successful, that it is now under attack by special interests in international banking, who fear that it might someday threaten their present-day monopoly over the international monetary system. As Attorney General, I would help Californians resist such attacks, to the best of my ability.
The Attorney General doesn’t work for international bankers, or even for politicians in Washington D.C. The Attorney General works for the people of the State of California, under the California Constitution. California has no interest in protecting the present-day monetary system. On the contrary, the people of California have been greatly injured by this system over the years, as the productive capital of the region has been sucked out or exhausted by monetary forces outside of the people’s control.
California has an interest in facilitating the use of honest measures and stable mediums of exchange by its people, building up environmentally sound productive capital in the region, and protecting the privacy of its citizens under the California Constitution. This includes the right of citizens to maintain privacy regarding their monetary exchanges, such as afforded by BitCoin and related technology. The Attorney General must be on the side of the people, and resist all government measures to institute capital controls and tracking of financial exchanges. Such control measures are fundamentally incompatible with liberty and the right of privacy as recognized by the California Constitution, and can only lead to greater totalitarianism and political corruption.
As Attorney General, I would resist attacks on digital currency and the right of privacy by refusing to enforce any laws against victimless conduct, writing legislation to protect digital currency from regulation offensive to privacy rights and personal liberty, and refusing to cooperate with international or federal agents seeking to prosecute digital currency exchangers, miners, or users.
As a large landowner and recipient of property taxes from all private land holders in the State, the State of California has legitimate interests in the protection of its property interests. When those property interests come under assault by parties outside of the State through environmental pollution, it should act to protect its property interests.
One such large-scale environmental attack is currently going on, and the present Attorney General has shown too little interest in investigating the damage or mitigating its effects. The meltdown, explosions and continuing releases of radioactive Strontium and Cesium from the Fukushima facility into the Pacific Ocean pose a very serious health and environmental risk to California property and residents. Both Strontium 90 and Cesium 137, with half-lives of about 30 years, were released to the ocean in large quantities, and some release may be ongoing still. These radioactive materials are arriving in California coastal waters by action of the Japanese current, and will accumulate here for many years to come. Bioaccumulation of radioactive materials in marine animals and residents may cause illness and early death of marine flora and fauna as well as people, and possibly extinction or permanent genome damage of less mobile species. Fukishima radiation undoubtedly poses a serious threat to California, yet is poorly understood and little investigated. This apathy and state of denial must end.
As Attorney General, I would use all available means to rouse the United States federal government from its deliberate denial and inaction, filing suit under environmental or other laws if necessary. I would also initiate proceedings against Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) and the national government of Japan in any appropriate forum, possibly including Japanese, U.S., or International courts, seeking information and injunctive relief from inadequate mitigation and remediation measures at the Fukishima site. Longer term, I would seek appropriate recovery of damages, if possible, against Tepco and the national government of Japan for licensing and operating the Fukushima site without adequate safeguards, for covering up the full extent of radioactive releases, and inadequate remediation.
I would seek to form legal and investigative alliances with the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, the province of British Columbia, the Mexican coastal provinces from Baja California southward, and other interested stakeholders. The purpose of these alliances would include pooling resources for environmental monitoring and remediation, and to apply legal and political pressure on national governments to put in place effective long-term solutions to radioactive pollution threats. This may include taking legal action directed towards phasing out all nuclear reactors operating in California, if necessary. I am not anti-nuclear power in general, but Fukushima has proven that current fission designs susceptible to meltdown in the event of coolant loss are not safe in the event of natural disasters or war.
In short, if elected, I would direct the resources of the Attorney General’s offices away from prosecuting victimless crimes and serving special interests, and towards mitigating what is potentially the gravest environmental threat this State has ever faced.
The California Constitution is a great document, not without defects, but on the whole more protective of personal liberty than the United States Constitution. It begins with the following declaration of rights:
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
Doing justice requires that laws be understood and enforced in a way that is consistent with this declaration of rights. As Attorney General, I would keep this declaration of rights foremost in my thoughts, and perform my duties so as to prevent any intentional trespass of these inalienable rights.
This is what justice requires.
Cannabis (marijuana) is one of the safest psychoactive and medicinal plants known, far safer and less addictive than alcohol, caffeine and most prescription medications. It is only illegal because of political pressure brought by special interests during a historical period in which most people were ignorant of its beneficial uses and relative safety.
Consequently, far more damage is done by enforcing laws against this plant and products made from it, than by its use or trade outside of the law.
Many innocent people have been imprisoned or have property stolen from them by state agents, merely for peacefully using or trading cannabis. Although such people were accused of breaking laws, the anti-cannabis laws that were enforced against them were clearly unjust under natural law and unconstitutional under the California Constitution, by any rational measure. Therefore, the people who enforced such laws against otherwise peaceful people were breaking their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and committing crimes under natural law. Enforcement of anti-cannabis laws is wrongful state aggression.
There may come a day when the victims of such state aggression will be awarded restitution by courts of law. If elected, I would refuse to prosecute anti-cannabis laws and to the extent possible, thwart enforcement or prosecution by any government agency. This will reduce state aggression and protect California from future claims for restitution by anti-cannabis enforcement victims.
No victim, no crime!
As Attorney General, I would exercise the power of prosecutorial discretion to the maximum extent possible, to allocate state police and prosecution resources away from legal infractions in which nobody and nothing was wrongfully harmed or put at unreasonable risk of harm.
Instead, I would direct those resources towards preventing wrongdoing by individuals and entities who are either actually harming people or trespassing legitimate property interests of state residents or the State of California, or doing things that create an unreasonable risk of such harm or trespass.
Exercising prosecutorial discretion in the interests of justice is the right and responsibility of the Attorney General.
I don’t actually want the job of California Attorney General. I already have a law practice, and giving that up to take the job of AG would mean a lot of disruption in my personal and professional life. I’m not retired and need to work to support my family. But I would accept the job if elected, am capable of performing it, and would do my best to perform it in accordance with the principles on which I ran.
So then why am I running? Not because I expect to win; nobody running on the Libertarian ticket has ever won statewide office in California. There are no special interests lining up to fund my campaign. No wealthy donors who have asked me to run. I don’t have enough spare cash to fund a bare bones campaign or even pay the filing fee. I’ll be lucky to raise enough money to just pay the fee, and getting past the primary is a long shot at best. And people who know me say I’m too honest and outspoken to be a politician.
So why run? Because there are a growing number of libertarians in California. The Libertarian Party is growing while the mainline parties are stagnant or shrinking. This is but a small indication of the increasing numbers of people, some of whom still vote, who understand that “freedom’s the answer” no matter what is the question. I’m running to give an opportunity to these people to ROAR, just by registering their preference for liberty on a ballot. I want to give voters, especially young voters, another opportunity to be exposed to libertarian ideas, for the first time or for another time. I’m running to learn and foster greater activism for liberty, inside and outside of electoral politics. Those are reasons enough.
Perhaps you’re one of these new libertarians. Perhaps you understand that the non-aggression principle is both a sound moral precept and a basis for a more prosperous and just society. That the tools of the modern state, such as high taxes, fiat money, central control, and forced redistribution of wealth, are justified by promises of security and equality, but deliver only greater poverty and inequality. That we have no right to interfere in the lifestyle or choices of our neighbors, even when their choices seem self-destructive, immoral, strange, or distasteful, so long as no victim is harmed. That it is a crime to fine or imprison someone for growing, possessing, or freely selling any food, service, plant, or medicine, in accordance with the natural right to control one’s own body and trade freely with others. That it is a crime to fine or imprison someone for keeping or bearing any firearm or other defensive weapon, in accordance with the natural right of self-defense. That the institution of the territorial sovereign power, once believed necessary for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, now threatens to become, or has already become, the greatest transgressor of our natural and inalienable rights.
THAT is reason enough to run.