Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Tom Alciere
Tom Alciere (Republican Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District. He lost in the Republican primary on September 10, 2024.
Alciere completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Tom Alciere was born in Cheverly, Maryland. He earned a high school diploma from Hingham High School. His career experience includes working as a laborer. He has been affiliated with Teamsters Local 633.[1]
Elections
2024
See also: New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District election, 2024
New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District election, 2024 (September 10 Democratic primary)
New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District election, 2024 (September 10 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
Maggie Goodlander defeated Lily Williams in the general election for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Maggie Goodlander (D) | 52.9 | 211,641 |
 | Lily Williams (R)  | 47.0 | 187,810 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 367 | ||
| Total votes: 399,818 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Sterling Sykes (Independent)
- Ryan Donnelly (Independent)
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
Maggie Goodlander defeated Colin Van Ostern in the Democratic primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on September 10, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Maggie Goodlander | 63.7 | 42,960 |
 | Colin Van Ostern | 36.1 | 24,342 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.2 | 160 | ||
| Total votes: 67,462 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- John Neenos (D)
- Annie Kuster (D)
- Becky Whitley (D)
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
The following candidates ran in the Republican primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on September 10, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Lily Williams | 35.6 | 22,040 |
 | Vikram Mansharamani | 26.7 | 16,565 | |
 | Bill Hamlen | 15.9 | 9,860 | |
 | Paul Wagner | 3.8 | 2,329 | |
 | Casey Crane | 3.3 | 2,046 | |
 | Randall Clark | 3.0 | 1,866 | |
| William Harvey | 2.8 | 1,743 | ||
 | Jay Mercer | 2.5 | 1,573 | |
 | Jason Riddle | 1.4 | 869 | |
 | Robert D'Arcy | 1.2 | 714 | |
 | Michael Callis | 1.0 | 632 | |
 | Tom Alciere | 1.0 | 623 | |
 | Gerard Beloin | 0.9 | 552 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.9 | 533 | ||
| Total votes: 61,945 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Mark Kilbane (R)
- Hillary Seeger (R)
- Robin Ng (R)
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Alciere in this election.
2022
See also: New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District election, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House New Hampshire District 1
Incumbent Chris Pappas defeated Karoline Leavitt in the general election for U.S. House New Hampshire District 1 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Chris Pappas (D) | 54.0 | 167,391 |
 | Karoline Leavitt (R) | 45.9 | 142,229 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 342 | ||
| Total votes: 309,962 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 1
Incumbent Chris Pappas advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 1 on September 13, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Chris Pappas | 99.1 | 41,990 |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.9 | 378 | ||
| Total votes: 42,368 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 1
The following candidates ran in the Republican primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 1 on September 13, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Karoline Leavitt | 34.4 | 25,931 |
 | Matt Mowers | 25.3 | 19,072 | |
 | Gail Huff Brown | 17.2 | 12,999 | |
 | Russell Prescott | 10.0 | 7,551 | |
 | Tim Baxter | 9.2 | 6,970 | |
 | Mary Maxwell | 0.9 | 673 | |
 | Kevin Rondeau | 0.8 | 610 | |
 | Gilead Towne | 0.6 | 466 | |
 | Mark Kilbane | 0.5 | 347 | |
| Tom Alciere | 0.5 | 342 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.6 | 440 | ||
| Total votes: 75,401 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Julian Acciard (R)
- Jeremy Stockton (R)
2020
See also: United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 2020
United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 2020 (September 8 Democratic primary)
United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 2020 (September 8 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. Senate New Hampshire
Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen defeated Bryant Messner and Justin O'Donnell in the general election for U.S. Senate New Hampshire on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Jeanne Shaheen (D) | 56.6 | 450,778 |
 | Bryant Messner (R) | 41.0 | 326,229 | |
 | Justin O'Donnell (L) | 2.3 | 18,421 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 486 | ||
| Total votes: 795,914 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. Senate New Hampshire
Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen defeated Paul Krautmann and Tom Alciere in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate New Hampshire on September 8, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Jeanne Shaheen | 94.0 | 142,012 |
 | Paul Krautmann | 3.9 | 5,914 | |
| Tom Alciere | 2.0 | 2,992 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 137 | ||
| Total votes: 151,055 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. Senate New Hampshire
Bryant Messner defeated Don Bolduc, Andy Martin, and Gerard Beloin in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate New Hampshire on September 8, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Bryant Messner | 50.5 | 69,801 |
 | Don Bolduc | 42.5 | 58,749 | |
 | Andy Martin | 4.7 | 6,443 | |
| Gerard Beloin | 2.2 | 3,098 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.2 | 241 | ||
| Total votes: 138,332 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- William O'Brien (R)
2018
General election
General election for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
Incumbent Annie Kuster defeated Steve Negron and Justin O'Donnell in the general election for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on November 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Annie Kuster (D) | 55.5 | 155,358 |
 | Steve Negron (R) | 42.2 | 117,990 | |
| Justin O'Donnell (L) | 2.2 | 6,206 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 151 | ||
| Total votes: 279,705 (100.00% precincts reporting) | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
Incumbent Annie Kuster advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on September 11, 2018.
Candidate | ||
| ✔ | | Annie Kuster |
| ||||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
The following candidates ran in the Republican primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on September 11, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Steve Negron | 26.0 | 11,166 |
| Stewart Levenson | 25.3 | 10,858 | ||
| Lynne Blankenbeker | 22.9 | 9,836 | ||
 | Bob Burns | 15.9 | 6,811 | |
| Brian Belanger | 5.6 | 2,388 | ||
| Jay Mercer | 2.9 | 1,232 | |
| Gerard Beloin | 1.5 | 623 | |
| Total votes: 42,914 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Libertarian primary election
Libertarian primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2
Justin O'Donnell defeated Tom Alciere in the Libertarian primary for U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 on September 11, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Justin O'Donnell | 74.6 | 428 |
| Tom Alciere | 25.4 | 146 | |
| Total votes: 574 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
2016
The race for New Hampshire's U.S. Senate seat was one of nine competitive battleground races in 2016. Incumbent Kelly Ayotte (R) conceded defeat to challenger Maggie Hassan (D) on November 9, 2016. They were separated by about 1,000 votes.[2][3]
After conceding, Ayotte said in a statement, “It has been a tremendous privilege to serve New Hampshire in the Senate and to make progress on addressing our heroin epidemic, making it easier for our small businesses to create good paying jobs, and supporting those who keep us safe in a dangerous world. This is a critical time for New Hampshire and our country, and now more than ever, we need to work together to address our challenges. The voters have spoken and now it’s time all of us to come together to get things done for the people of the Greatest State in this Nation and for the Greatest Country on Earth.”[4]
In her victory speech, Hassan said, "We know that this election exposed very serious divisions in our country, and it's up to all of us -- elected leaders and citizens -- now to come together and focus on our common challenges and our common opportunities. Our work going forward is going to be to remember what unites us as Americans and how we can make progress together."[5]
Hassan also defeated Libertarian candidate Brian Chabot.
During the campaign, Hassan attempted to tie Ayotte to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who lost the state to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Hassan's campaign manager, Marc Goldberg, said, "Trump helps. He unequivocally helps. [Ayotte] has this weight around her leg in Trump that she's dragging around."[6]
Ayotte’s strategy was to distance herself from the top of the ticket and run a local campaign focused on issues that impacted New Hampshirites. Although she initially said that she would vote for Trump, on October 8, 2016, Ayotte withdrew her support for Trump after The Washington Post released a 2005 video of Trump making comments about women that were described as "extremely lewd." She added that she would cast her vote for Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Ayotte also chose to skip the Republican National Convention, preferring to attend campaign events across her state. She frequently spoke about her role in passing a bipartisan bill in the Senate that would help New Hampshire address its opioid abuse crisis and about her national security credentials.[7][8][9][10]
Ayotte and Hassan both tried to define themselves as independent candidates who would stand up to members of their parties and special interest groups, in order to gain the support of independent voters in the state. Their task was difficult as outside groups tried to define these candidates by pouring nearly $91 million into the race. The candidates themselves had spent a combined total of $30.5 million, according to The Center for Responsive Politics.[11][12][13][14]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic |  Maggie Hassan |
48% | 354,649 | |
| Republican | Kelly Ayotte Incumbent | 47.9% | 353,632 | |
| Independent | Aaron Day | 2.4% | 17,742 | |
| Libertarian | Brian Chabot | 1.7% | 12,597 | |
| Total Votes | 738,620 | |||
| Source: New Hampshire Secretary of State | ||||
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kelly Ayotte Incumbent |
78.9% | 86,558 | ||
| Jim Rubens | 17.4% | 19,139 | ||
| Tom Alciere | 1.4% | 1,586 | ||
| Gerard Beloin | 1.1% | 1,252 | ||
| Stanley Emanuel | 1.1% | 1,187 | ||
| Total Votes | 109,722 | |||
| Source: New Hampshire Secretary of State |
||||
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Tom Alciere completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Alciere's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
- Liberty and justice for all
- Bind the federal government down with the chains of the Constitution
- Unalienable rights, by definition, preempt the Rule of Law.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Alciere’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Bend The Knee? Not Me! I do not support Trump. I never did. I never will. Trump is a total jackass, wholly unfit for public office. In 2015, Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the Republican Party of New Hampshire, filed with the Ballot Law Commission to exclude Donald Trump’s name from the Republican primary ballots, providing a laundry list of reasons why Trump isn’t even fit to be called a Republican. Filing … Response from Trump campaign … Ruling. Republicans now supporting Trump show total lack of principle. I am a Ron Paul Revolutionary, having worked on his campaign and built a website, The Book of Ron Paul, cataloguing many of his Congressional speeches and statements. Let’s see now … the Capitol rioters thought they were defending the Constitution of the United States by physically resisting the fulfillment of its most vivid clause: The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; (Amendment XII) … and Trump supporters count Mike Pence a traitor for doing exactly that. I distinguish myself from the other candidates as the one who never supported Trump and as the one who wants the United States of America to become a free country, with liberty and justice for all. Face it, most people wind up either voting for Democrats because the Republicans are so bad, or voting for Republicans because Democrats are so bad. I offer the opportunity to vote for a good candidate. It took a bloody war, started over other issues, to emancipate the slaves in some States, because too many crazy people kept voting wrong. What will it take to open the borders, legalize all drugs, abolish public school and school taxes, and eliminate zoning restrictions, to name just a few of the many steps toward liberty and justice for all? Let me start with drug laws: If somebody is dealing fentanyl, you don’t have to buy any. You don’t have to let your children buy any. People ask how they are supposed to control their children when the children are in school. That is another reason public school has to go. In a free country, nobody would be forced to pay school taxes. Legitimate schools would have to compete for students, and any school with a drug problem would take care of it or go out of business. In public school, children are taught that a boy who is disappointed he is not a girl, who pretends to be a girl and convinces himself that he is a girl, is a girl. They insist that he has a right to shower with girls in the girls’ locker room, and any girl who objects needs to learn to get over it. I have a better idea: The boy who is disappointed he isn’t a girl, or vice versa, can learn to get over it. Some voters keep electing candidates who are in favor of public school, insisting that every child somehow has a right to an education at somebody else’s expense. When school taxes go up, they tell local bureaucrats to impose tougher zoning restrictions to prevent more families from moving into the town, and they tell Congress to add more U.S. Border Patrol goons, to prevent more families from moving into the country. Now, what were they saying about “every” child? If families cannot afford to educate their children, how will they afford a bureaucracy that will educate their children, and how in the world will they afford the large house and yard required by the zoning restrictions just so the town can tax it? They designate some parts of town as residential and other parts as business districts, and they complain that so many people are driving cars. Well, without zoning restrictions and parking lot requirements, folks could live closer to working, shopping and drinking; and they could walk home. Governments never had any right to restrict immigration. Maybe you have heard that silly song, This land is your land, this land is my land... but the truth is, if you own your yard, it is not mine. By the way, that song was performed at Biden’s inauguration. Take a tour of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and you will get a vivid view of what happened to millions of innocent persons, because of U.S. law enforcement goons enforcing immigration restrictions, preventing the victims from escaping.[15] |
” |
| —Tom Alciere’s campaign website (2024)[16] | ||
2022
Tom Alciere did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Alciere's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Abortion Life is an unalienable right. Often the baby’s unalienable right to life conflicts with the rights of the mother. The baby’s unalienable right to life narrowly preempts the other rights of the mother, but this is not to minimize the ordeal she faces. Too many voters overlook the burdens that governments impose on mothers. Orthodox libertarian extremists need to prioritize the elimination of these burdens. For example, somebody wanting to open a maternity home would immediately face local zoning boards. Government-funded colleges don’t schedule classes with unplanned pregnancies in mind. While the young mother tries to pay the rent, that cost is inflated by zoning restrictions whilst her net income is reduced by taxes. Mothers who are not yet ready to raise their babies need the option of shared parenting, where volunteers take care of the baby when she cannot, until she is ready to take full charge of her kid. Papa, Don’t Preach A pregnant girl may face a situation where her parents say, “In this house, you will do as you are told! What did you think you were going to do, disgrace this family with an illegitimate child, and raise a baby here in our house? Oh, no you won’t!” Congress needs to make the District of Columbia a safe haven for pregnant runaways. The law against transporting her across State lines must be amended to contain that exception. If somebody transports a pregnant runaway to the District of Columbia and faces a kidnapping charge in her State, what should be done when an extradition demand is made from that State? Article IV §2 of the United States Constitution is clear:
Conveniently it makes no mention of the District of Columbia, which is not a State.
When you need to contact a federal agency, there is no excuse for their deliberately and maliciously mis-programming their answering system to reject calls from persons who will not navigate menus. You have a right to reach a live human even if you do not navigate the menus. There is no excuse for any federal agency telling you that you must use the internet to schedule an appointment or to resolve an issue. There is no excuse for any federal agency refusing to accept cash payments for “services” that are only necessary because they force you to seek them. There is no excuse for any federal agency telling you to learn a new computer system so you can get a number and have a seat. Let them run the computer and issue you a number. What are you visiting about? You will explain that in private to the person who will be helping you.
Often, the enemies of liberty can see the obvious flaws in their absurd arguments. Sometimes, their line of reasoning is so absurd they cannot even pronounce it, so they will offer part of it, in such a way as to convey the expectation that you know the rest and accept it as conventional wisdom. If a man is older than his girlfriend’s father, either of these men might shout at the other, “Mister, she’s eighteen years old.” They agree on the fact while disagreeing on the conclusion to draw from it. The same thing is happening when enemies of liberty say, “The United States Supreme Court upheld that statute.” as if that settled a matter. When that happens I might say, “Please explain why you agree with that ruling.” They are stunned at the very idea that they have a choice. Often, the enemies of liberty use absurd arguments because good, sound, logical reasoning does not support their position, so rather than abandon their incorrect position, they must depend heavily on bad reasoning. They refrain from pointing out the obvious flaws in each other’s lines of reasoning, and this emboldens them to offer the same absurd arguments to us. Never let their ability to offer a line of reasoning with a straight face tempt you to overlook the flaw in the reasoning. Change the laws What are we supposed to do, clone ourselves so we can be more numerous on election day than all the crazy people? Don’t blame slavery on the abolitionists. You never served your country. As an anti-war activist I often heard this and had trouble figuring out what G.I. Joe was trying to say. Are child molesters the only ones qualified to judge child molesters? Why should I participate in the unjust war I am protesting? What G.I. Joe is trying to say is this: He dropped Napalm on children in Viet Nam, and that means he is better than you, and so are his opinions, and he is entitled to call the shots and you are not. George Washington was given a powerful government job as a reward for his work during the Revolutionary War, and because of the respect he earned as commander. That makes sense. Many veterans are trying to cope with all the abuse they endured, by making believe it makes them superior to everybody else. It is easier to pretend if everybody else pretends with them, so they expect all of us to pretend with them, and often react angrily when we will not. It is true that the average veteran knows more about the laws of land combat and the difference between collateral damage and war crimes than the average protester, but this does not mean that the protester is wrong to protest the war in Iraq, which, let’s face it, was started so Vice President Cheney’s friends at Halliburton could make money off the oil. Love it or leave it. One of the favorites of the enemies of liberty, they ignore: 1.) Here’s a better idea: The United States of America could become a free country, with liberty and justice for all. 2.) The only ones who are free to leave the country are the ones who can get permission from the bureaucrats of a foreign country to move there. Dual citizens automatically can move to the other country, but many other people are unable to obtain permission. One reason is that they have a criminal conviction because of a blatantly unjust law, or because a cop lied in court, or both. The other country’s bureaucrats see the conviction and deny permission. Other fallacies Personal attacks: Unable to find any flaw in the line of reasoning that proves the Pythagorean Theorem, they seek to find fault with Pythagoras, which is absurd reasoning because the line of reasoning is independent of any person. Unable to find fault with Pythagoras, they often make something up. Argumentum ad numerum: This is a logical fallacy which holds that if the vast majority believes something, it must be true. One reason so many people profess to believe all the conventional nonsense is because they are afraid of being ridiculed, marginalized and even locked up and drugged if they do not. The action verb fallacy: It is somehow your job to they-do-something. If it is your job to win elections, then it is somehow your job to they-vote-for-you, and you must not force them, and they refuse. Of course, if we are stupid enough to fall for this, they always win. If orthodox libertarian extremists are unable to convince more voters, it is because most voters refuse to shut off their crazy switch. They refuse to become reasonable. Convince is an action verb that requires the co-operation of the direct object. Legislators did not defeat their opponents, the voters who elected them did. The same is true with court cases. If you lose in court, it does not mean there was any flaw in your legal arguments. More often, the so-called justices chose to vomit forth another manifestation of malicious judicial perfidity. The possessive adjective fallacy: Picture a 14-year-old girl who screams wildly because she does not get her way, and then she pulls a knife on her step-father. This sounds like a spoiled brat, right? When I explain that the step-father was trying to rape her, and she reacted this way, now she sounds much more reasonable. It helps to know what “her way” is. Orthodox libertarian extremists run into this because the enemies of liberty don’t want to admit that good, sound, logical reasoning proves that our way is also the correct way. One part of this fallacy is when the enemies of liberty claim, “That’s just YOUR opinion!” and ignore the solid line of good, sound reasoning that clearly proves our opinion is correct. To call it your opinion is to demote the correct opinion down to the level of all other opinions, as if all opinions were equally valid. With religious opinions, there is truth to this. Is it a sin to eat pork? Is it a sin to eat meat on Friday? Is it a transgression to drink coffee? Maybe we will all find out on Judgment Day, but until then, all of those opinions are equally valid. With other opinions, it makes no difference how intensely somebody holds the opinion. What matters is whether the opinion is correct or not. Enemies of liberty have often accused me of being no better than Hitler, who put his opinions above the opinions of the masses. I put my correct opinions above the opinions of the masses. These are very different opinions, and therein lies the big difference. All opinions are not equally valid. We all know how Hitler was not exactly championing the cause of liberty and justice for all. Since religious opinions are equally valid, what about the often-cited God-given rights? Isn’t it a religious opinion that liberty is a God-given right? Yes, it is a religious opinion, much as it is a religious opinion that God makes the tide rise at Hampton Beach. Some people think that a godless Nature makes the tide rise. Luckily for us, it is totally irrelevant whether God or Nature makes the tide rise, because we can plainly see that, either way, the tide does rise; and it is irrelevant whether liberty is a God-given right or a Natural right, because, either way it is an unalienable right, which no government can justly infringe. Collectivism Enemies of liberty are quick to allege, “The people overwhelmingly support that law!” To that I reply, “No, I do not!” Always remember what your geometry teacher said: For a statement to be true, it must be true for all cases. They may be so used to lying, they forgot how to speak the truth: The overwhelming majority of people support that law. That is no excuse to violate the unalienable rights of everybody else. Enemies of liberty have argued that statistical analysis of historical crash data proves that the government should commit a hate crime against innocent, responsible alcohol drinkers who are younger than 21. Truth is, each person is a distinct individual and a distinct transaction, except for organized forces on a mission. Not only the exact same enemy pilots who dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, but all of the armed forces of the hostile government are the enemy, for the duration of the hostilities. Not only the exact same enemy officers who threw the flash grenade into Bounkham Phonesavanh’s playpen on 28 May 2014, but all of the police forces of the hostile government are the enemy until the inevitable ultimate triumph of Operation U.S.A. Freedom. They are all on a mission to intimidate innocent persons into obeying the unjust laws of an unjust government. (Deter means intimidate.)
It is not only the federal government that is waging a war on cash. By harassing and intimidating innocent persons, bureaucrats and many businesses are trying to stop you from using cash. Many gasoline stations charge you more for paying in cash than if you pay by debit card. The solution there is simply to stop buying things from those gasoline stations. Let them go out of business. That is the orthodox libertarian extremist solution. It is one thing for private businesses to establish their own policies, but it is quite another for government institutions to participate in the war on cash. If somebody wants to become a United States citizen, the first step is to buy a permanent resident card. There is no reason United States Citizenship and Immigration Service cannot accept cash. For all that free money, they can afford it. The Infernal Revenue Service will take your house and your car, but their Nashua office won’t take your cash. You see, they are part of the United States Department of the Treasury, which is supposedly not equipped to handle and safeguard cash. That is garbage. For all that free money, they can afford a cashier and some cash-handling equipment. If the Nashua Transit System wants to make its quarterly tax payments in quarters, I.R.S. needs to be ready. Of course, in a free country, there wouldn’t be an income tax or a government-run bus system. There is no excuse for a police station holding prisoners hostage for ransom and then requiring money orders. I understand, there is too much risk of somebody walking in with a gun and holding up the police station, and cops are too crooked to be trusted with cash, but if you are not a threat to the public safety, then you have a right to be released pending trial, rich or poor; and if you are a serious threat to the public safety, you must not be released at any price. Even if you are guilty of breaking the law, the government has no right to make you enroll in a court-ordered program if the school does not accept cash. One of the many problems with Obamacare is that you are forced to buy health insurance from businesses that do not accept cash. Repeal Obamacare. There is no excuse for configuring the Farecard vending machines, operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority at D.C. Metro stations, to reject $2 notes and half dollars. Frankly, I can see how privatizing the subway system would not be as easy as selling the buses and letting the free market provide bus service, but re-configuring the machines should be simple enough.
Strangely, many liberals howl furiously when a business owner refuses to serve sickos, but then they are silent when the government uses gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to intimidate the same business owner into refusing to sell alcoholic drinks to persons under 21. That is the real hate crime, because nobody chose to be younger than 21. I practice what I preach. As an orthodox libertarian extremist, I keep my idiot switch and my stupid switch shut off, and I follow good, sound, logical reasoning to arrive at the correct opinion: The sickos are not violating anybody’s rights by having a gay old time. Therefore, they must be tolerated. This does not mean anybody has to like them. Civil rights activists were right to protest when government-run indoctrination centers suffered the bullies to prey on queers. That had to stop. The perfect way to stop that would be to stop the government from using gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to intimidate everybody into paying school taxes. Then legitimate schools would prosper, and would have to compete by improving safety, curriculum, hours, and prices. Outrage over unprovoked violence against queers, however, has led the government to ignore the rights of other persons. Palatine High School in Illinois was ordered to let a boy shower in the girls’ locker room. News media offer confusing accounts by calling him a transgendered girl. He is not a girl. Liberals insist that if a girl objects to showering when there is a boy in the room, she should learn to get over it. That is outrageous. I have a better idea. If a boy is disappointed that he is not a girl, he should learn to get over it. Picture Susie Cheerleader, who is pregnant by one of the players on the high school baseball team. At Aunt Edna’s Baby Farm in Fort Worth, Texas, she reviews the profiles of adoption applicants. Here’s a man and a woman saying they promise to love the baby with all their hearts. She turns the page to find a couple of queers who want to adopt her baby. If she is brainwashed enough with the politically correct nonsense from the government-run indoctrination center, she could very well deliver the baby, who has no say in the matter, into the hands of queers, who could have made babies themselves if they had wanted to, the same way my wife and I did. The sickos are not demanding simply to be left alone. When the kid gets older and it becomes obvious that there is something seriously wrong with the adoptive “parents,” the kid might accept an invitation from a classmate’s parents by simply boarding the other school bus, but the adopters would demand that the government get involved, and send gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests on a mission to track the kid down and force the kid back into the hands of homosexuals. Technically, the queers are not violating anybody’s rights by having a gay old time, but they knew they would not make a baby that way. Somebody smarter than I am designed things that way. Let them face the consequences or straighten out. Make no mistake: They made a choice. In 2018 I went to the Hudson Town Hall to switch from being a Republican to being a Libertarian, and now I will vote in Libertarian primaries, for Libertarian candidates. Switching from queer to straight is even easier. They can edit their dating website profile and then go on dates with persons of the opposite sex. Back in high school, I would answer unkind jokes a few different ways: You’re about as funny as a fart in a space suit. You’re about as funny as a firing squad standing in a circle. You’re about as funny as a queer in the Army. Years went by. Decades went by. Guess what? They allow queers into the Army. The mission of the Armed Forces is far too important to let the morale of the straight troops suffer. The men shower together. Chaplains are forbidden to preach the word of their God. Many service members won’t re-enlist. If they are so desperate for recruits that they have to accept queers, it is probably because so many folks don’t want to sign up for a war in Iraq that was started so Vice President Cheney’s friends at Halliburton could make money off the oil. Congress and the President shouldn’t start unjust wars. As a United States Senator, I will have to hire staff. It will be my duty to get a good deal for the money. I must not let my own personal dislike of queers get in the way of hiring the best-qualified applicants. It is not like I am running my own business with my own money. Liberals are frustrated when they review their options at the chessboard. The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was chartered, “To hold forth a lively experiment that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained with full liberty in religious concernments.” In a free country, you would not be required to hire queers, nor to rent to them. You would also be free to run a business and hire only queers, or buy buildings and rent only to queers. Strangely, it is called employment or tenancy “at will” even when the owner is forced against his or her will, by the government. That has to stop. Anti-discrimination laws applied to wholly private transactions have no place in a free country. Where a government intervention is cited as an excuse, such as a tavern that enjoys a limited-issue license affording it a government-protected monopoly, it is the licensing law that must be repealed. In a free country, anybody could buy a house on the market and open a saloon. You don’t have to go in there. Liberals could boycott businesses that refuse to serve sickos, but other people could buy-cott those businesses. What are the liberals afraid of? Let the lively experiment happen.
Computer security is an expensive headache, but an important necessity. Many folks have been hearing it for so long, they may have been conditioned to believe it is the individual’s duty to keep certain personal information private, even though the information is beyond their control. If job applications require your social security number, how can you stop the employer from leaking it? How can you be expected to protect information if big companies don’t? The real problem is that anybody can telephone a bank and claim to be you, but with a new address. By reciting enough of your personal information, the caller can acquire a credit card with your name. The banks could require identification and the credit cards could be sent through a secure channel that requires identification at the time of delivery. Of course, you need to be careful when disclosing your account numbers, but you also need to be free to opt out of online banking. Somebody working at the dentist office can write down your checking account details when nobody is looking, but this information should not give criminals any access to your account. Sand The federal government and its vendors need to secure their computer systems by implementing firewalls. One computer would do the work with the confidential data and then encrypt it, exporting the cryptext to a data storage device such as a flash drive. Then the operator would remove the storage device from that computer, which would never be connected to the internet, and install the device into another computer, which would do nothing but receive and send cryptext. The hackers may break into that computer, but all they would get would be cryptext. One day at the beach, I scooped up a handful of sand and examined it. I realized that a close-up bitmap image of this sand would provide an abundance of random numbers. Each picture element (pixel) of a bitmap image consists of three numbers, each in the range from 0 to 255. Each number is one byte of data: eight binary digits, each binary digit being a zero or a one. There are 256 possible combinations of zeroes and ones, eight binary digits (bits) long. There is one byte for red, one for green and one for blue. The bitmap image would produce millions of random binary digits. The same lump of sand can then be shaken and photographed again, revealing millions more random binary digits. These binary digits can be the foundation of one-time pads for secure encryption. With this unbreakable form of encryption, it is essential to have a secure channel for the one-time pad. The President could deliver the data storage device, such as a compact disc (C.D.) to a visitor in the White House, or the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations could distribute these discs to the other countries’ ambassadors. Bankers could hand you the storage device at the time you open your account. A lot of transaction data can be encrypted with a single megabyte of one-time pad. The use of unbreakable encryption would go a long way toward reducing data breaches.
1.) To prevent blood borders, the drinking age in every State has to be 21, because that’s the only integer that is equal to itself. 2.) Drinking alcohol during pregnancy harms the baby, so we impose Prohibition on men under 21 and not on pregnant women 21 and older. 3.) A tipsy rape victim will be arrested for internal possession if she calls the police, who are there to protect and serve. 4.) We jail parents who are home supervising your drinking sessions in order to prevent you from holding such sessions. 5.) A new scientific study published in the New England Journal of Medicine conclusively establishes that the politicians you voted against have a right to impose this law on you. 6.) Statistical analysis of historical crash data proves that the United States of America ought not to be a free country, with liberty and justice for all, where the citizen decides what to drink, where parents govern their child who still lives in their house, where the punishment for drunk driving is meted out to the drunk drivers. 7.) Freeways are more important than freedom, — especially when it’s your freedom, not ours — so we sold your freedom to get more highway construction money from Congress, (like a mother selling her daughter for cocaine money,) and we still expect you to respect this law. 8.) The drinking age saves lives. Of course, we could save a lot more lives, maybe yours, by doing what it takes to eliminate drunk driving, but we’d have to give up driving drunk ourselves, and that’s not fair because we can drive better drunk than teenagers can sober. 9.) A combination of driving inexperience and alcohol make you a greater danger on the road, whether you drive or not, and that gives us the right to punish you when you drink alcohol, whether you drive or not. 10.) Don’t drive drunk? We can list some other crimes you never commit, as an excuse to deny liberty to you: murder, rape, assault... 11.) Everybody who drinks under age is immature and irresponsible because they’re doing something that is illegal, as well it should be, because they’re so immature and irresponsible. 12.) Liquor corporations have the nerve to advertise their products to you, and we have more respect for their First Amendment right to free speech than we have for your God-given right to drink the beverage of your choice. 13.) We can’t stop older drunks from freely exercising their right to practice alcoholism, because they hold too much political power, but some of them started as teenagers and never had a chance to quit since then, so we punish you instead. 14.) You shouldn’t destroy your brain while it is only 95 percent developed. You should wait until it is completely developed and then destroy it, like we did. 15.) Even though this law is imposed on you by morons who cannot see the obvious flaws in these absurd arguments, it is embellished with a fancy seal, and a Governor years ago scribbled his autograph on it, so you have a sacred duty to obey it. Translated by Tom Alciere
We tried. We sought to protect you from the serious harm you could inflict on yourself by drinking alcohol. We sought to spare you from experiencing the wretched life of an alcoholic. We endeavoured to stop you from drinking yourself to death. At every step, you were bound and determined to defeat our efforts, as if we were your enemy. You accused us of a hate crime. We invested in the latest counterfeit-resistant technology for our official identification cards, and you kept up, with all the pride of an Underground Railroad worker forging documents to help fugitive slaves pass themselves off as free. You felt a sense of duty, as if you were a German Underground worker forging passports to help Jews escape from Hitler. You traveled to a foreign country during Spring Break for the sole purpose of drinking alcohol where our police, — “enemy officers” you call them — could not touch you, and you cried victory. You accused us of hypocrisy, preferring to impose “second-class citizenship” on you instead of saving more lives on the road by imposing tougher drunk driving measures on ourselves, but we knew it was true. Call us naïve, even delusional, but we didn’t expect the hostility you expressed. Many persons your age are okay with the our efforts, but not you. We forgot that each person is a different individual and a distinct transaction. We thought you accepted our reasons for infringing on your inherent natural right to drink the beverage of your choice. We thought you were exaggerating when you quoted Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. We were in denial. It wasn’t so bad when you sent lawmakers postcards from abroad, with hateful messages. Most politicians are used to that. You accused us of selling your freedom to Congress for highway money, asking if we would also sell our daughters to rapists for cocaine money. We routinely get such rhetoric. What started to bother us was when you said you would not join the National Guard to protect our lives and property if we wouldn’t even vote to protect your right to liberty. It pained us when you said, quite seriously, that you have resolved you will never render aid to an “enemy officer” in distress. The last straw, — our wake-up call — was when you said, “Senator, if you enjoy that warm feeling you get from protecting me, I invite you to pour gasoline all over yourself and light a match. You will get a warmer feeling, and the human race will be better off without you, and your use of gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests as weapons of unprovoked violence, trying to intimidate Mr. and Mrs. Twenty into abstaining from the beverage of their choice.” We give up. You win. Our limited resources will be better spent protecting other persons. You’d just drink yourself to death on your 21st birthday anyway, as so many persons have done. If we save your life, you will spend the rest of your life making us wish we hadn’t. Sign the attached form, and we’ll give you an ID exempting you from the drinking age. If you’re under 18, your parent must sign, too. The BAC limit is still 0.02% until you’re 21, but we know that’s okay with you, because you said you never drive after drinking. You insist you know what you’re doing, so don’t expect any leniency in court if you break the law. Don’t buy for anybody. Why aren’t they exempt, too? Maybe they’re over 18, but not as defiant as you, so why put yourself at risk for those “timid Men, who prefer the Calm of Despotism to the boisterous Sea of Liberty” of whom Jefferson spoke? Maybe they’re under 18 and their parents care about them. You can be sure they will press charges. Except in State-run stores, we won’t make anybody serve you, because you said this should be a free country. When you die, we won’t tax innocent persons to pay for your burial, either. We’ll just find a medical school that will take your body off our hands for free. Now you will have nobody to blame but yourself. We tried, but you adamantly asserted your rights.
In a free country, each citizen would freely decide what drugs, if any, to use. If somebody does drugs, that does not violate anybody’s rights and therefore is part of their unalienable right to liberty, a right of inestimable value to them and formidable to tyrants only, a right which no government can justly infringe. drugs. On 12 April 2012, the police chief of Greenland, New Hampshire chose to get himself killed in a drug raid. If you voted for candidates who opposed legalizing drugs, that cop’s blood is on your hands. You didn’t pull the trigger, but you did pull the lever. On 29 August 2002, two goons from the Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Department chose to get themselves gunned down trying to take a man to a mental institution where he would have been locked up and likely would have been drugged. That’s what it took to say “no” to drugs. A lot of Maryland residents voted for candidates who support the practice of locking up and drugging innocent persons for the benefit of drug companies. They didn’t pull the trigger, but they did pull the lever. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. —John F. Kennedy Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_f_kennedy_101159 The unalienable right to resist drug enforcement and the unalienable right to resist forced drugging are as absolute and as sacred as the unalienable right to resist rape. It makes no difference that the enemy officers were “just doing their jobs,” because employment contracts between a government and its cops cannot entitle the latter to violate the unalienable rights of non-signatory third parties. Drug abuse is a symptom of personal problems. Nobody cares. If you care about somebody, there are ways to show it, other than employing gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to intimidate the person into living a healthier lifestyle. Many parents are deep in denial. “Name your poison,” the saying goes. Their son or daughter drank enough poison to die of alcohol poisoning, but supposedly it wasn’t a suicide. Other people politely allow them to indulge in denial, but that can mislead people into voting wrong. I don’t want people to vote wrong.
Because zoning restrictions are imposed at the local level with the blessing of State legislatures, restoring economic prosperity will require nation-wide efforts to eliminate zoning restrictions. Many cities and towns misuse zoning restrictions to prevent the construction of residential housing, with a view to prevent people from acquiring a legal residence within municipal limits and thereby reduce school costs. This could be avoided by doing away with public schools altogether. Without zoning, builders will have an incentive to tear down a dilapidated single-family house with lead paint, aluminum wiring and asbestos. Of course, completely removing the asbestos is impossible, but they would clean it up as best as they could. Then they could erect a ten-family apartment house, which is much more efficient because there is no heating loss along interior walls and floors. Local bureaucrats glance at a site plan and immediately ask, “Where are the tenants going to park their cars?” which is like asking where they will land their helicopters. Adding a parking lot costs money, which drives up rents, and bureaucrats have no right to rob tenants who don’t have cars. People should be free to live closer to places where they can work, shop, or gather to drink together. Bureaucrats have no right to punish people for not driving cars. Abolishing zoning will immediately lead to an abundance of new jobs in demolition and construction, and with a glut of new housing on the market, rents will plunge, allowing families to save for college while sending the children to legitimate schools. Congress needs to start the process by eliminating zoning in the District of Columbia. Congress also needs to repeal federal laws that impede the development of new jobs. I don’t want pollution, but there is nothing in the United States Constitution giving Congress a right to protect the habitats of endangered species. Want a bird sanctuary? Buy some land and start one.
There is nothing in the United States Constitution allowing Congress to involve itself in education, and even if there was, governments cannot acquire authority by manufacturing documents. A President’s duty to support education is fulfilled by reciting the alphabet for Sesame Street. Many voters overlook the high cost of public school. Local governments use zoning restrictions to prevent the construction of residential buildings, to prevent families from acquiring a legal residence within the town limits, and thereby prevent the families from enrolling the children in government-run indoctrination centers. The result is that families are forced, by zoning restrictions, to pay a lot more for housing than they would in a free country, even if they enroll the children in a legitimate school that uses no stolen money. Many parents have been offered lucrative jobs but were prevented from accepting them because they would not be able to deliver their children to the government-run indoctrination centers on a schedule that fits the convenience of bureaucrats. In a free country, you would be able to operate a school 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and kids could arrive and leave at any hour. Schools would also be able to innovate instead of complying with government-imposed restrictions. When children play Monopoly, they don’t know they are doing their arithmetic homework. Ask a classroom of sixth graders to name countries in Africa where French is an official language, and the stamp collector is the one who knows, because stamps are inscribed in the official language of their country. I would be in favor of constitutional amendments imposing nationwide bans on school taxes and on zoning restrictions. I will absolutely vote against federal grants to public schools, and will support efforts to eliminate public schools in the District of Columbia.
Election integrity is extremely important, given the cost of not having faith in elections. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the times, manner and places of Congressional elections. Start with ballots printed by check printing firms, and with serial numbers concealed for privacy. After the polls close, night shift would start uncovering the serial numbers, time-stamping and scanning each ballot with a flatbed document scanner. The machine would read the ballot and its serial number, and would produce a list of all serial numbers with a vote for each candidate. Anybody could click on any serial number to see an image of that ballot and see that the machine got it right. The machine would list every ballot with a vote for your candidate, and a running count in the column to the left, so anybody could see how many votes each candidate got. If it sounds expensive, look at the cost of failing to do so in the 2020 presidential election.
As an orthodox libertarian extremist, I support liberty and think logically. Therefore I subscribe to the doctrine that the boundaries of the United States of America are the boundaries of the United States of America. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the role of the world’s policeman. On 12 September 2006, Syrian security forces repelled an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus. When White House spokesman Tony Snow thanked them, the Syrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. replied that U.S. actions in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories have been fueling a rise in violent Islamic jihadism. The problems actually date back to 1953, when the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) toppled the elected government in Iran and put the Shah into power to prevent the nationalization of oil production. And let’s face it, the war in Iraq was started just so Vice President Cheney’s friends at Halliburton could make money off the oil. The United States needs to follow the course of the Founding Fathers: Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling Alliances with none. The need for the State of Israel was made obvious during the Shoah, when Hitler and his goons exterminated an estimated 5,100,000 Jews and millions of other persons. (See my website, THE-HOLOCAUST.INFO for some historical records.) These victims had no place where they could flee, because of U.S. immigration laws that prevented their escape. The United States must welcome refugees fleeing persecution. If the State of Israel is less secure without U.S. military protection, the Israeli people should be free to migrate to the United States. The State of Israel provides a place where Jews can go to flee persecution. Now what about the other categories of Shoah victims? The boundaries of the United States of America are the boundaries of the United States of America, and for the most part, are clearly defined. However, both Canada and the United States of America claim Machias Seal Island. The U.S.A. needs to initiate a claim before the Permanent Court of Arbitration over that island, to show the Chinese that this is how these things are settled by civilized countries. If U.S.A. politicians fear losing such a case, now they know how the Chinese feel about the Spratly Islands. Thomas Jefferson supported a strong navy to protect U.S. shipping interests in international waters. The U.S. Navy must be ready to take on threats to peaceful sea traffic in international waters today.
In February 2012, the Commonwealth of Virginia killed a baby by preventing the hospital from operating a specialty nursery that might have saved the kid’s life. The bureaucrats didn’t want hospitals to compete with each other. In any free country, competition would be a key element to the success of free markets. Derry Imaging stays in business by advertising its lower costs for x-ray, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (M.R.I.) services. State regulations limiting the supply of health care, immigration restrictions preventing doctors and nurses from moving to the United States of America, and a host of other restrictions drive up health care costs. New York Times article on the outrageous costs of health care administration. If your condition requires a pill costing $10 a day, and a pharmaceutical company invents a pill slightly better and costing $100 a day, doctors are forbidden to prescribe the more affordable medicine. It is considered medical malpractice. This means they are forced to prescribe the pill you cannot afford. Maybe you can manage to afford it, but then you must skip the rent and end up living on the street. All of these restrictions have one thing in common. They are all backed up by gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests. Seldom do they actually move into battle. As any chess player knows, A threat is more effective than the actual implementation. Nothing in the United States Constitution allows Congress to regulate most doctors and hospitals. Of course, the power to raise armies and to provide and maintain a navy requires hospitals to take care of the soldiers and sailors; and the Enclave Clause allows Congress to regulate such things in the District of Columbia and on military bases. Compare smoking to gambling. If you smoke two packs a day, that might add up to about $100 a week, but if you gamble, there is practically no limit to how much you can squander. There is also no limit with health care. There will always be people dying who could have been saved for a few million dollars more. You are free to donate your money to save them, but you have no right to steal other people’s money. We all have ideas for fixing health care. I would put the medical school dormitory at the hospital and let the students use their acquired skills to earn a living and to pay tuition. A student qualified as an emergency medical technician (E.M.T.) or nurse’s aide would perform that work to pay room, board and tuition while acquiring more skills, all the way up to doctor of mediciane (M.D.) I would say, if you smoked pack after pack of cigarettes and now you have lung cancer, or if you drank so much alcohol that you got cirrhosis of the liver, you should be last in line for a transplant. Let the limited number of transplant organs go to people without delibeately self-inflicted problems. However, it is not for Members of Congress to decide these things, except in very limited circumstances.
Rights are not gifts from any government. Liberty is an unalienable right which no government can justly infringe. Whilst many civil rights activists are complaining that some persons face deportation hearings without the benefit of a lawyer or an interpreter, we orthodox libertarian extremists need to make our demands clear: Shut down the United States Border Patrol. The only legitimate reason anybody would need a permanent resident card is if he or she would want to apply for citizenship eventually. Since everybody is created with the unalienable right to liberty, there is no excuse for imposing immigration restrictions. Enemies of liberty offer worthless excuses for the Border Patrol. They re-elect candidates who support the theft of your money to pay for welfare programs instead of repealing the laws that impose poverty. If you leave a bowl of cat food on your lawn, don’t complain when stray cats wander into your yard. In a free country, you would not be forced to hire immigrants, nor would you be forced to rent to them. Strangely, bureaucrats call it employment or tenancy “at will” even when the rightful owner is forced by anti-discrimination laws. Many politicians enjoy buying votes this way: Vote for them and they’ll force somebody to hire your friend, or to rent to your friend. The blood of millions of Holocaust victims is on the hands of federal bureaucrats who prevented them from escaping to the United States of America. So is the blood of many Syrian refugees. Orthodox libertarian extremists must make it clear: We will not render aid to a Border Patrol goon in distress, and we urge others not to do so. On 22 November 2016, a United States Border Patrol goon, aided and abetted by two Nassau County deputies, was confronting six innocent persons in a pickup truck in Florida. The Border Patrol goon took three of the innocent persons into custody, and the other three tried to avoid a violent confrontation by leaving, two in the pickup truck and the other on foot. The deputies chased him onto SR-200, a busy highway. He made it safely to the median, and one of the deputies was struck by a sport utility vehicle and died at the scene. Orthodox libertarian extremists must stop mincing our words: It serves him right. He was free to turn in his badge and get a job instead. It’s not like there was ever any question whether governments have a right to restrict immigration: They never had any such right, period. Voters who elected politicians who support immigration restrictions have the blood of that cop on their hands. They voted for it.
The pro-union and anti-union outfits sent me questionnaires with meaningless questions. Let me explain. One of the principal objections to labor unions does not apply under the current conditions in 2022. When I entered the labor market many years ago, I would check the want ads. Let’s see now, there’s a job, but the buses don’t go there. There’s another job, but the buses don’t start that early. What about all the entry-level union jobs working for the public utilities, the postal service and mass transit? Those jobs were reserved for men who served their politicians, to reward them for having dropped Napalm on children. (Don’t get me started on that!) So they got the high-paying jobs with good benefits, and I got a temp agency assignment when I was lucky, and I got the utility bills that reflected the union wages paid by companies with government-protected monopolies. Passing along union wages that were well above what the average worker made, was a form of taxation, because the nobody could set up a competing electric company to save families money. Nowadays, those businesses are scrambling to hire enough workers. I work at UPS as a package handler. We are served by the Teamsters Local 633, but UPS has to pay considerably more than the union contract requires, in order to bring in enough workers. When some select workers enjoy higher wages, simply for being the son of a union member or for fighting an undeclared, unconstitutional war, it is unfair to the workers who are locked out of such jobs. Nowadays, however, anybody who wants a union job at UPS need only apply, same as I did. Asking whether a person should be forced to join a labor union is meaningless. Clearly, a government has no right to make you join a labor union as a condition for a government job. Neither should there be negotiations: The legislative body, be it Congress, the State legislature, the county convention or the local selectmen or board of aldermen, should pass laws setting the rates of pay. The same is true for an employer that enjoys government-imposed protection against competition, such as an electric company or an airline. (Airlines may propose a new route from their hub to MHT and may be told that no, there are already enough airlines serving that market.) Perhaps the best solution there is to repeal the laws that limit competititon. UPS is a company with no government-imposed protection against competition. They have a right to select their employees, same as you have a right to select who may mow your lawn, and you agree on a price. UPS has a right to say you cannot work there unless you join the Teamsters, and they also have a right to say they won’t negotiate with the Teamsters. Under the current conditions, it would be interesting to see how they would hire replacement workers, though. It is in the best interest of UPS to negotiate with the union. Let’s keep it that way. To keep the labor market tight, forcing employers to compete for workers instead of workers competing for jobs, let us review the chessboard. Abolishing the zoning restrictions would unleash an abundance of new jobs in demolition and construction. Projects that would never have been proposed because the developer would be laughed out of town hall, would proceed. Dilapidated single-family homes with lead paint, aluminum wiring and asbestos would be removed. (I can never resist: They would clean up the asbestos as best as they could.) Parking lots cost money, and the cost is passed along to tenants. Families don’t need a parking lot if they don’t have a car. Requiring a parking lot robs families without a car. The town could no longer force the builder to include a parking lot, and that land could be used for more housing. In practice, they would need an off-street loading dock, because the town has a right to forbid blocking a public street with a moving van. A glut of new, latest-code housing will force landlords to compete with each other for tenants, instead of tenants competing for an artificially limited supply of housing. Some investors will lose everything, same as when slaves were emancipated. That is life. Some suburban residents will be furious when working class, immigrant and Negro families move into “their” town. I can hardly wait. When rents plunge under free-market conditions, there will be no need for housing subsidies. Observe the strategy: Look for opportunities for the government to do less, in this case by not imposing zoning restrictions, instead of doing more, through subsidiezed housing, to help working families. When folks are free to live closer to where they can work, shop, or gather to drink together, they could walk home. Some folks shudder at the thought of a saloon in “their” neighborhood, where the patrons could walk home instead of driving. They feel entitled to impose a burdensome tax on drinking, in the form of ride fares. When folks can live closer to working, shopping and drinking, they won’t need cars, and they could save for college, down payment or retirement. When ride share companies arrived, city bureaucrats scrambled to figure out what to do. By the time they got around to voting on laws that would ban the ride-share companies, which operated without taxi medallions because the city capped the number of medallions issued, the public grew so fond of ride-share companies that elected officials didn’t dare ban them, lest they lose the next election. With the cap on the number of medallions being made meaningless by the ride-share companies competing against the taxicabs, the value of taxi medallions plunged, and some investors went bankrupt, after having lived for decades off the labor of taxicab drivers who rented the taxicabs and the passengers who had little choice but to use taxicabs.
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Did you hear the joke about the guy who tried to join the Islamic State, but they wouldn’t take him because he’s too crazy and too brutal for them? He returned to the U.S.A. and joined his local police department, where he fits right in. Truth is, law enforcement is a necessary evil, but lately they have been far more evil than necessary. Black lives definitely matter, but the protest movement lacks a clear message beyond demanding justice on a case-by-case basis; and many protesters base their opinions on somebody else’s opinions instead of looking at the strengths and weaknesses of each case. What is needed is the Copper Rule. The Copper Rule Part One: Whatever is the maximum a person could get for doing that crime to a cop, is the minimum a cop must get for doing the same crime to a person. Crimes committed by cops are more serious, the same as armed robbery is more serious than shoplifting something of equal value. It is often illegal to fight off the cops even when they are in the wrong, and the cops vigorously enforce such laws. What is the maximum you could get in Georgia for throwing a flash grenade through the open window into a police cruiser and badly burning the cop? That is the minimum the cops must get for throwing that flash grenade into a toddler’s playpen in Cornelia, Georgia on 28 May 2014 and badly burning the kid. It makes no difference that the cops were “just doing their jobs” because employment contracts between a government and its cops cannot entitle the latter to violate the unalienable rights of non-signatory third parties. This nonsense about a cop having a right to kill somebody based on a “perceived threat” has to stop, too. The person has to be criminally threatening or criminally attacking somebody, and the cop better be ready to prove it. Not being able to see what is in somebody’s hands is not criminally threatening. On 3 October 2013, a Connecticut woman made a wrong turn at 15th and E Streets in Northwest Washington, D.C. She sped away when threatened at gunpoint by Secret Service agents. She was chased to the Capitol, where video footage does not show damage to the front bumper despite stories about how she supposedly tried to ram her way through a concrete barrier. Then she was trapped on Maryland Avenue in Northeast and brutally murdered in cold blood by U.S. Capitol Police and Secret Service. No criminal charges are pending. Even the Copper Rule is not good enough if prosecutors simply do a half-hearted job. Part Two: A person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and a cop must be presumed guilty until proven innocent. When you are in handcuffs you cannot be expected to get the names and addresses of witnesses. Many persons are afraid to be “caught” videographing the cops’ criminal wrongdoings. Then the cops take you to a place that is off limits to spectators. Cops control the collection of evidence and they know how to prove cases, so it is up to them to do their jobs.
Q: Does Tom Alciere want to secure the blessings of the metric system to ourselves and our posterity, or is he on the side of the dummies who are proud they don’t even know the metric system? Article I §8 clause 5 of the United States Constitution clearly empowers Congress to fix the standard of weights and measures. I will support measures to secure the blessings of the metric system to ourselves and our posterity, such as declaring speed limits and zoning restrictions null and void if they are not metric, and forcing States to accept metric units on driver license applications. When my wife applied for Naturalization in 2016, the instructions clearly said not to use metric units on the application, and that is clearly a violation of U.S. Code, Title 15 §204. The dummies must not be allowed to deprive us of the benefits of metric measure.
Bureaucrats enforcing the laws in foreign states require you to have a passport to enter the territory of their state. Further, to re-enter the U.S.A., you are required to have a U.S.A. passport. There is no right to impose a fee for a U.S.A. passport, any more than there is a right to impose a fee to register to vote. The fee imposed is blatantly unjust and must be repealed. A passport is an excellent form of identification. The renewal process needs to be modified so that you keep your previous passport until the new passport is ready to pick up in person. That way, you don’t have to spend a few weeks with no passport, where there is a risk you may suddenly need to travel abroad for a funeral or some other emergency. Requiring personal delivery would also help deter passport fraud. Passport delivery stations would have a federal cop waiting to arrest you if you show up to get your passport after fraudulently applying. That is better than mailing your passport to an address where somebody you know allows you to use their address and will deliver the passport package to you if the fraudulent application is successful, but would deny any knowledge if your fraudulent statements are detected. The Trump Administration’ latest hate crime is positively unexcusable. The Washington Post reports that holders of Texas birth certificates are being denied U.S. passports out of suspicion that a midwife may have filed the birth record falsely. That is no good. The birth certificate is prima facie evidence of birth in Texas. The Post reports that people are having unexpired passports revoked without a trial, and are stuck in Mexico. What if Mexico will not take them? Anulling a birth certificate is serious, and the individual is entitled to due process. The burden of proof must be on the government.
Every few years, U.S.P.S. holds forth a postal exam. Postal jobs are awarded to the applicants with the highest scores, in descending order of their scores. Many persons who passed the exam never get hired before the next exam, because the number of passing, qualified applicants is so many times the number of available jobs. This indicates two things: First, U.S.P.S. is paying far too much for labor. Wages aren’t set by Congress as they should be, but by arbitrators when the American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO and the postal management fail to agree. The arbitrators essentially set all the terms of the document which is strangely called an “agreement,” even though neither side agreed to it. Second, some of the country’s best and brightest minds are being put to use running letters through a canceling machine. They are forbidden to run for public office. It’s time to cut postal wages. Postal workers who don’t like it will find another job, and the postal jobs will go to people who need a job. If it is difficult to get by on a letter carrier’s salary, it is mostly due to zoning restrictions driving up the cost of apartments, and the government taking so much money to squander on politicians’ vote-buying sprees. Better yet, shut down U.S.P.S. altogether and allow private businesses to deliver things at rates the businesses set. Until then, I object to classifying mail according to criteria that have nothing to do with the cost of delivery, such as the frequency of a periodical’s distribution, or whether it contains more than 75 percent advertising. Each piece should constitute a separate transaction and everybody should have to pay the same rates. Every piece should have postage affixed, the dollar amount of which should be shown; and should get a postmark. All adhesive postage stamps should have a water-soluble primer between the adhesive and the paper, to make it easier for children to collect stamps without exposing themselves to harmful chemicals. I oppose pre-canceled stamps and stamps marked for a particular use, such as “Bulk Rate”.
The best way to deal with Social Security is to repeal the tax. I’m 60, and I have paid into it for many years, so I would still get a pension, but my daughter has never paid anything into it, so she would not be “entitled” to a pension. Neither would she feel compelled to vote for pro-Social Security candidates instead of candidates who support economic freedom. Over the years, the Social Security liability would become less and less until there are no surviving persons who ever paid into it. They’re not paying pensions to veterans of the Spanish American War because there aren’t any.
Picture this: You are seated at your computer in your house, trading stocks on line on the Singapore exchange, while I sit in my identical house across the street, in the same town, playing chess on line against a server in Germany. We’re both getting the same protection from the armed forces and the local fire department. It makes no difference if you make a hefty profit. If you get defrauded, you deal with Singapore’s government bureaucracy. If I make nothing playing chess while you have a good day trading stocks, I might heat up a can of ravioli while you might call out for pizza, and pay tax on that. Governments are far too intrusive, invading our personal privacy to learn how much money we make, when it really is none of their business. The cost of defending the country needs to be paid by taxing what goes through ports of entry and cash registers in the United States of America, and not on what happens elsewhere. If you commute across the border and work in Canada, any problems involving unpaid wages or workplace hazards would be handled by government bureaucrats in Canada. Particularly troubling is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which burdens those banks abroad that serve anybody deemed under U.S.A. law to be a U.S.A. citizen, and coerces the banks to provide information on those deposits. The U.S.A. has no right to tax people in other countries and cannot acquire such a right by manufacturing documents declaring such persons to be citizens of the United States of America. Many of these persons are no more “American” than U.S. Senator Ted Cruz was a “Canadian” when he learned in 2013 that under Canadian law he was a citizen of Canada. President Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Should the Kenyan bureaucrats claim President Obama as one of their citizens, and then impose income taxes and bank account reporting requirements on him? Of course not. Taxing domestic sales and not income would help make U.S.-made goods more competitive. An imported car would be subject to the same sales tax as a domestic car. The cost of making cars in the U.S.A. currently is increased by the taxes on the labor involved in the manufacture. In States with sales taxes, one obstacle to opening a new store is the requirement that you spend time and money, which you could spend buying merchandise and advertising, to get a bond that guarantees you won’t flee with the government’s tax money. You must also register as a business that collects the tax. Small businesses need the option of buying revenue stamps. If you operate a table at a flea market, you could apply sales tax stamps to the receipts, cancel them with a pen, and pay the sales tax that way. You would not be required to spend time and money keeping records and getting audited. The government does not need to know how much you sell or how much money you make. The soldiers protecting your business still have to get paid. The cost of the armed forces needs to be reduced by eliminating waste and eliminating U.S. military bases in other countries. Those countries don’t have bases in the United States, do they? But the defense of the United States is still a necessity and an expensive one, requiring taxes.
Veterans are not better than anybody else, but the United States needs to keep quality medical care available to veterans with service-related problems. That way, if the country is attacked and has to go to war, the medical care will be ready, for wounded warriors.
There is nothing in the United States Constitution allowing Congress to provide welfare. Article I §8 gives Congress power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” but the words, “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” is a limitation on the power to tax. Consider President James Madison’s veto of a bill to fund public works:
Many an anti-war protester, marching in the streets of Washington, D.C., has been offered along the route, newspapers ranging from pro-labor union to Communist Party. Been there. Smoked that. Read those. Then I got a job. Leftist propaganda extols the virtues of Marxism and Socialism while denouncing the evils of capitalism, but the truth is, they are talking about corrupt, crony capitalism, where bureaucrats, backed by gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests, pick winners and losers. There is a common rationalization for welfare. The rich got rich because they got picked by the bureaucrats for alcohol licenses, bail-outs, banking licenses, broadcasting licenses, casino licenses, defense contracts, all the way down the alphabet to taxi medallions and zoning variances. Since they got picked any you didn’t, you might figure that they must be forced to share their ill-gotten gains with you. Here is a better idea: Remove the unjust laws that are the basis of these manipulations of the economy. The New York City taxi medallions did not get confiscated, but Uber moved in without medallions and offered consumers an alternative. Abolish zoning restrictions and immediately there will be an abundance of jobs in demolition and construction, and landlords will scramble to find tenants willing to pay half of today’s rents. Residents of mansions would look out their windows to see mobile homes owned by working-class people. Poor things, they will have to live in a free country, with liberty and justice for all, where they cannot use gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to enforce snob zoning restrictions. How can life get any worse? Always look for ways to repeal poverty instead of adding more bureaucracy. This will also eliminate a lot of corruption by downsizing the government. Most of your problems are imposed on you by the government. You will feel better when you are allowed to provide for yourself and your family instead of depending on the enemy government.[15] |
” |
| —Tom Alciere's campaign website (2022)[17] | ||
2020
Tom Alciere did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.
2018
Ballotpedia survey responses
- See also: Ballotpedia's candidate surveys
Tom Alciere participated in Ballotpedia's candidate survey on September 7, 2018. The survey questions appear in bold, and Tom Alciere's responses follow below.[18]
What would be your top three priorities, if elected?
| “ | To establish justice, provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.[19][15] | ” |
What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about? Why?
| “ | Liberty, the freedom to do whatever does not violate anybody’s rights. Specifically, abolish drug laws, open the borders to immigration, eliminate zoning restrictions and get rid of public school.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many[15]
|
” |
Ballotpedia also asked the candidate a series of optional questions. Tom Alciere answered the following:
Who do you look up to? Whose example would you like to follow and why?
| “ | Ron Paul, because he understands and supports the U.S. Constitution, including the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers.[15] | ” |
| “ | Honesty and support for the rights of all.[15] | ” |
| “ | Honesty and a determination to protect the rights of all.[15] | ” |
| “ | Never vote to violate anybody’s rights.[15] | ” |
| “ | A champion of liberty.[15] | ” |
| “ | President Kennedy was shot. I was four years old.[15] | ” |
| “ | Auld Lang Syne[15] | ” |
| “ | Yes, but remember, it is like piloting a jet. It helps if you know what you are doing but only if you do not intend to crash the jet. Most politicians and most voters want to misuse the coercive power of government to violate the rights of others.[15] | ” |
| “ | Staying ahead of China.[15] | ” |
| “ | Commerce[15] | ” |
| “ | It is fine.[15] | ” |
| “ | The real problem is voters going by whatever their TV spoon-feeds them instead of consulting Project Vote Smart and Ballotpedia.[15] | ” |
2016
The following issues were listed on Alciere's campaign website. For a full list of campaign themes, click here.
| “ |
|
” |
| —Tom Alciere's campaign website | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
|
Candidate U.S. House New Hampshire District 2 |
Personal |
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on July 5, 2024
- ↑ Twitter, "The Associated Press," November 9, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Election Results," accessed November 14, 2016
- ↑ The Boston Herald, "Hassan narrowly beats Ayotte in Senate race," accessed November 14, 2016
- ↑ United Press International, Maggie Hassan narrowly defeats Kelly Ayotte for New Hampshire Senate seat, accessed November 14, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Trump challenges Republican chances in NH Senate race," accessed September 6, 2016
- ↑ New Hampshire Union Leader, "On the trail, it's all Hassan and no Trump for Ayotte," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ Concord Monitor, "Opioid bill sponsored by Shaheen, Ayotte heads to president’s desk," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ Concord Monitor, "In Republican debate, Ayotte brushes off Rubens to focus on Hassan," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005," October 8, 2016
- ↑ WMUR.com, "Updated WMUR.com first: Outside spending in Ayotte-Hassan US Senate race now more than $55 million," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Ayotte goes local during summer of Trump," accessed September 5, 2016
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Dems in New Hampshire supported by the secret money they rail against nationally," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "New Hampshire Senate Race," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ 15.00 15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05 15.06 15.07 15.08 15.09 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 15.14 15.15 15.16 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Tom Alciere for United States Congress, “Home,” accessed August 28, 2024
- ↑ Tom Alciere for United States Congress, 2022, “Home,” accessed August 25, 2022
- ↑ Note: The candidate's answers have been reproduced here verbatim without edits or corrections by Ballotpedia.
- ↑ Ballotpedia's candidate survey, "Tom Alciere's responses," September 7, 2018
