Scott Bradley vs. Mike Lee

Discuss principles, issues, news and candidates related to upcoming elections and voting.
Post Reply
arlene
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 9

Scott Bradley vs. Mike Lee

Post by arlene »

The voters of Utah-
I want to voice my feelings over the upcoming race for the Senate. There are
two real choices as I see it. No, I'm not talking about the Democrat vs
Republican, but the Constitutionalist vs the Republican. Scott Bradley
(Constitution Party) is running against Mike Lee (Republican). Both advocate
their adherence to the Constitution. Both say they will uphold their oath of
office. Both claim reverence for that document. However, since they are two
separate human beings, they will not exactly agree on every issue. One of them
will hold to the principles of the Constitution more than the other. But they
are both honorable men.


Now, at this particular time in our nation's history, we have to return to the
true founding principles in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution. Time constraints no longer allow us to vote for someone who is
"conservative." We are on the precipice of destruction. We have to get this
election in the fall right this time, because if we don't, we probably won't
have another chance. No longer can we skate by with the idea that "I'll vote
for candidate X or candidate Y will be elected, and candidate X is the lesser
of two evils." That kind of thinking produced the problems we face today.
Conservative Republicans are destroying us almost as fast as liberal Democrats.

See the quotation below for proof.


Norman Thomas, who ran for the presidency five times on the Socialist Party
ticket said, "The United States is making greater strides toward Socialism
under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt, particularly in the fields of
Federal spending and welfare legislation." Later, he stated, "The difference
between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of
socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly." (W.
Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 130)

Both major political parties are guilty of taking us to the brink of national
disaster by this practice. Voting for the lesser of two evils just doesn't
work. One is still voting for evil. The slide into Socialism may be slower, but

becomes steeper and therefore stronger as time passes. We simply don't have the

time to say, "I'll vote for the lesser of two evils this time, and we'll get a
constitutionalist in the next time." We are on the brink of the destruction of
the Constitution, forecast by Prophets, and we cannot let this kind of logic
sway our thinking anymore.

Anther phrase used all too often is "I have to vote for a Republican or
Democrat. A vote for a third party candidate is a wasted because they are never

elected." In fact, both the Republicans and Democrats, whether they are
liberals or conservatives, are destroying our Constitution, as Norman Thomas
testified. So in reality, voting for either of the major party candidates is
the wasted vote for they won't change the end result. In fact, voting for these

two parties is akin to voting for one's own eventual slavery.

Dr. Skousen used to say that all the political problems America is undergoing
now is due to a departure from the Constitution and that the cure is to return
to the original precepts of the Constitution, in the tradition of the Founding
Fathers.


There is no time left for equivocation on the question of voting. We have to
vote for the right candidate, regardless of party. That will leave our
consciences clean before the Bar of God. Joseph Smith said, "...we shall have
the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used
our best judgment. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so
upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the
weapon we put in his hand to destroy us." (Joseph Smith, Jr., Times and
Seasons, IV:441)

That is very wise. The people we vote for can destroy us, either through malice

aforethought, or inadvertence. Either way, our Constitution is destroyed. I
hope you will join with me to vote for the candidate in this upcoming election
that most closely stands for the principles of the Constitution.


Having said all that, let's now consider the two candidates in question. The
best way to compare them is to use their own words when talking about the same
subject. I'm going to do that by going to both Bradley's and Lee's campaign
websites. Here are their URLs.

Lee: http://www.mikelee2010.com/

Bradley: http://www.scottbradleyforsenate.com/index.html

I'll copy and paste their answers to the following issues, and compare how they

stack up against each other. We need to know who is the best constitutionalist.

Issue: Health Care

Lee: First and foremost, we must work to defund and repeal Obamacare. Every
possible means must be applied within Congress as well as through the
application of the Constitution and the law to stop full implementation of this

legislation. We must also support meaningful solutions to health care reform
which increase the portability of insurance for individuals, allow individuals
and small businesses to fully claim the same tax deductions large corporations
currently enjoy, ease limitations on health savings accounts (HSAs), put an end

to outrageous malpractice damage awards, and allow for communities and groups
to unite in associated health plans. Enabling free market forces to work by
allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines will also help

drive down costs through positive price competition. Health care reform must
never give government the authority to force Americans to buy health
insurance,

redistribute wealth to satisfy government mandates, or overburden small
businesses which would contribute to job losses. The real solution to our
current health care challenge is found in less government involvement in the
process -- not more.


Bradley: The so-called Obamacare must be resisted at all levels. States must
legislate against its application within their boundaries, court cases must be
filed to protect and enforce that legislation, States must simply say "NO,"
every effort must be made within the US House and Senate to repeal this gross
violation of the US Constitution, and congress must exercise their
constitutional prerogative to prevent its application by withholding funds for
its implementation (see US Constitution Article I, Section 7, clause 1; and
Article I, Section 9, clause 7). Other perverse "substitute" healthcare
"reform" approaches...are equally wrong in that they inject the national
government into a constitutionally prohibited realm.

Comparison: Both Lee and Bradley want to terminate Obama's Health Care Bill.
However, Lee wants to work within the present healthcare system to lower costs,

allow the operation of the free market in the system, give people and
businesses tax benefits, increase portability of insurance, and ease
limitations on health savings accounts, among other measures. He says, "The
real solution to our current health care challenge is found in less government

involvement in the process -- not more."
Bradley simply says, "Other perverse "substitute" healthcare "reform"
approaches...are equally wrong in that they inject the national government into

a constitutionally prohibited realm.

Here we find a difference. Lee wants to work within the present system for
healthcare reform, while Bradley wants to eliminate all healthcare reform
approaches as unconstitutional.

Issue: Entitlements

Lee:Three entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are on a

course that is as disturbing as it is unsustainable. Through these programs,
Congress has promised to provide roughly $50 trillion in “unfunded” benefits to

Americans who are alive today—that is, benefits for which Congress lacks the
financial means to pay. This is irresponsible. While current Social Security
beneficiaries must be held harmless, there needs to be a systemic overhaul to
these programs, lest they bankrupt the country. To do so, people will need to
realize that the benefits those older generations have had, may not be
available in the future. But to not overhaul these programs cannot be postponed

or overlooked any longer like the problem is going to go away.


Bradley: Federal entitlement programs are unconstitutional. They must
ultimately be eliminated. Time will be necessary to "wean" people from the
long-entrenched programs. All such programs must be "frozen" at current
levels, and receive no further increases or expansion of scope. "Sunset"dates
must be set upon all programs which do not currently have closure dates, and
each year a real reduction in funding to programs must be legislated, with a
"straight line" year-by-year diminishment of the program to its demise. No new

entitlements are to be created. Some programs, such as Social Security, will
immediately be made "voluntary." Under such a scenario, older Americans that
were pillaged and plundered into poverty by the government-mandated seizure of
the fruits of their labor (and now have nothing left for their old age except
the promise of the "contract" the federal government forced upon them) will be
able to see the government fulfill that contract as was agreed. Of necessity,
that contract must be fulfilled out of the general revenue stream, at the
expense of other entitlement programs that will be phased out under this
approach. Younger Americans will quickly see that it is in their best interest
to "go it alone" in planning to prepare to look after themselves in their old
age (with a much better return on their investment than is offered to Social
Security pensioners). Employers will no longer have to withhold the funds
currently used to pay their "share" of FICA, and they may pay that fair salary
to their employees as they compete for the best employees in the free market.
Medicare and Medicaid will also be phased out in a similar manner, fulfilling
the contract made over the years to older Americans, while freeing younger
Americans from the largest "ponzi" schemes ever foisted upon humanity.

Comparison: Lee wants to overhaul the programs, while Bradley wants to gradually

phase them out as unconstitutional.

Issue: Balanced Budget Amendment

Lee: Deficit spending facilitates the continuing growth of the federal
government. It is far too tempting to shift the cost of today’s federal
expansion to future generations. Until we require Congress to operate under a
balanced budget, that expansion will continue. A balanced budget amendment is
essential to restoring the original, proper role of the federal
government...Under that amendment, deficit spending should be permitted only
where (1) two thirds of the members in both houses of Congress agree that a
specified amount of deficit spending is essential to the well-being of the
country, and (2) that decision is ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths

of the States.


Bradley: Do we need a "Balanced Budget" Amendment? NO!...First of all, each
version of the amendment allows deficit spending based upon agreement of (in
most instances) a 60% approval of both houses of congress...With this
stipulation sixty senators and 261 congressmen may approve a deficit budget.
Because most senators and congressmen support the unconstitutional idea of
buying votes back home by delivering largess out of the public treasury to
their constituents, it is not hard to see how even in non wartime circumstances

(if the nation ever experiences a time when we are not at war) most budget
votes easily attain the 60% threshold (the practice of adding additional
expenditures to buy the votes of reluctant congressmen will continue at an even

greater rate than it has in the past).
And, if the Balanced Budget Amendment is in place, and when the 60%
deficit-allowing threshold is not attainable, but the majority still want to
spend the money they feel they need to spend...they will be required to raise
taxes to cover the expenses.Even those who prefer a tax increase to a budget
deficit will at some point reach the breaking point where they will no longer
be able to sustain themselves because the government has devoured their entire
living...In addition, it would be a miracle if the national leadership did not

regularly resort to spending "off budget" (which is currently a common practice

for "important" expenditures that they do not want to have calculated in the
national debt for various reasons). The solution is a return to the constraints

of power on the federal government which exist within the United States
Constitution. The problem is not with the Constitution. The Constitution is
not flawed. It does not need to be changed. The problem is that we have
stopped applying the Constitution.

Comparison: Lee wants a balanced budget amendment except for when 2/3 of both
houses and 3/4 of the states override it. Bradley is opposed to the balanced
budget amendment for the reasons stipulated above. He says the Constitution
isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed.


Issue: Federal Public Lands

Lee: Roughly 70% of the land in Utah is owned by the federal government, and
therefore cannot be taxed or otherwise regulated by the State. Utah’s
economy—as well as the State’s public education system—suffers as a result.
Much of this suffering is unnecessary. Consistent with Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution, Congress should enact legislation providing
that, except where Congress acquires land “by the consent of the State
legislature,” federal land within a State is subject to taxation and land-use
regulation by the host State. In this and other areas of the law, Congress
should not be content to rely on Supreme Court precedent that cannot fairly be
reconciled with the text of the Constitution. If Congress doesn’t want federal

land to be taxed, it should either (1) acquire such land with the consent of
the host State’s legislature, or (2) sell the land and use the revenue to pay
down the national debt.


Bradley: The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 17)
defines the constitutional limits of lands to be held by the national
government. The holdings of the national government were to be extremely
limited, and constrained to specific applications. The Constitution does not
grant authority to the national government to be the largest landholder in the
nation. The Northwest Ordinance, which was passed in 1787 and re-passed once
the Constitution was ratified (to assure that it was understood to apply under
the newly-constituted national government) defined the original intention that
all new States be admitted into the nation on an equal footing with previously
admitted States. Originally, as States were admitted, the land within the
boundaries of the States was transmitted to the States, or put into the hands
of the people, as soon as was practicable. The Western States were denied the
privilege of joining the nation on an equal footing with the older States (yes,

I am aware that the Western States agreed, under duress, to "grant" the lands
to the national government as a term of their admission as a State, but now is
the time to correct this injustice). Most of these Western States have spent
more than 100 years as "second class" States because true freedom and economic
wealth generally originates in the land (minerals, water, timber,
agriculture).

Returning to the land-use formula which was set forth as this nation was
founded would solve the economic crises face by the States, and end forever the

energy crisis which is upon us because of our failed foreign policies and
government-meddling in our domestic affairs, specifically land-use and
ownership.


Comparison: Lee wants to tax Federal land and subject it to state land-use
regulation within its borders. If the Federal government does not want the land

to be taxed, they must acquire it with the consent of the state legislature or
sell it. Bradley wants to return to the original formula of returning the land
to the states.

Issue: Illegal Immigration

Lee: Congress needs to fix this problem by:
1. Investing in the technology, personnel, and physical infrastructure
necessary to secure the southern border
2. Enforcing existing immigration laws
3. Improving and promoting the use of E-Verify—a nationwide
immigration-status

verification system designed to enable employers to ascertain quickly and
accurately whether would-be employees are authorized to work in the United
States;
4. Mandating and enforcing the denial of federal and state welfare benefits
to

illegal immigrants;
5. Clarify the original intent of the citizenship clause through
legislation

specifying that children born to illegal-alien parents in the United States are

not entitled to automatic citizenship; and
6. Making clear that illegal aliens will not receive amnesty in any form,
and

must return to their own countries before applying for a visa; illegal aliens
should receive no benefit from having entered the United States illegally, and
should not be granted guest-worker visas or the opportunity to “purchase”
lawful immigration status.
Bradley: The nation must immediately secure our border by whatever means
necessary, including deployment of US military forces that we have so
freely deployed to foreign soils for the same purposes overseas. The US
military's purpose is to protect this nation. That includes the nation's
borders. Public notification must be made that those who are currently in the
United States illegally will be given a reasonable length of time to liquidate

the assets they hold in the United States (three to six months), and leave the
country. They will then be allowed to go to the end of the line back in their
home countries and follow the rules for legal immigration which the US Congress

defines. And once they have met those criteria, they may apply to come to this

country legally. Those illegals who are discovered remaining in this nation
after the grace period will be arrested, and they will be deported from the
country with no possibility of applying for legal entry in the future.


Comparison: Both candidates support secure borders, the return of illegal
immigrants to their home countries, and no amnesty.


This is not a complete comparison between these two candidates. There are some
subjects which one candidate addresses on his website that the other does not.
Therefore, a valid comparison can't be demonstrated.

The overall conclusion of these comparisons is that Bradley is the true
constitutionalist, when comparing the two candidates views on the same
subjects. The idea of working within the system in the entitlement area is
especially enlightening. They are plainly unconstitutional. They should be
gradually eliminated, not overhauled or changed.


I hope this is helpful for those who wonder which one to support. For those who

still think that they should vote for Lee or the Democrat will be elected,
think about this-there are more independents in Utah than are found in the
Republican party. The Constitution Party will use all its influence to get
their vote so that they can win this election in the fall without cutting into
the Republican vote. Wouldn't you rather vote for the winner in this case, the
one who is the true constitutionalist? Thank you for reading this article.
Fight for Freedom.
Ken Bowers

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Scott Bradley vs. Mike Lee

Post by lundbaek »

As I suspected, Scott Bradley is the true constitutionalist, while Lee seems to be trying to appeal to a more (and greater) socialist element.

Is it possible that Scott Bradley could pull enough votes away from Mike Lee that the Domocrat candidate would win the seat?

User avatar
prew
captain of 100
Posts: 433

Re: Scott Bradley vs. Mike Lee

Post by prew »

Scott Bradley wins the contest at being the best defender of the Constitution.

Some interesting things about the Budget.
About 60% of the budget is entitlements.
Tax receipts only pay for about 60% of the budget; we have to borrow the other 40%.

Anything that get rid of entitlements is supported by me.

I like the plan for phasing out Social Security presented by Scott Bradley. It actually worked. Pinochet of Chile phased out Social Security to bring that country out of economic depression.

FreedomorBust
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 2

Re: Scott Bradley vs. Mike Lee

Post by FreedomorBust »

Mike Lee was asked if there "is a penalty for violating the Oath of Office." His response "I don't think so." He also wants to re-write the Constitution. He willingly accepted the endorsement of Orin Hatch. Orin Hatch pormotes and votes for Socialism. I asked Hatch to support abolshing the Federal Reserve. His response was "Congress delegated their responsability to the FED." Show me in the Constitution where they can delegate their responsability. I asked him to support our removal from the communist UN. His response "we need to be a member of the UN Security Council to, paraphase, keep them honest. Anyone who knows anything about the UN knows we only have "ONE VOTE." In my opinion Lee and Hatch are birds of a feather. For me to donate to Lee would be a waste of money and to vote for him would be a wasted vote, a vote for more of the same.

Post Reply