Candidate's name: Bob Bird
Party: Alaskan Independence Party
Date of birth: August 1, 1951
Employment history: 34 years 31 in Alaska 30 on the Kenai Peninsula
Previous public offices held: None
Previous unsuccessful runs for office: Republican primary for U.S. Senate (1990)
Education: Graduate of Marian Central Catholic, Woodstock, ILL; Bachelor's from Bemidji (Minn) State University (1974); Master's from Mankato (Minn) State University (1992)
Spouse name: Rosemary
Children: Mario, Quincy, Elena
Web site: www.birdforsenate.com
1. Why are you running for office?
Because no one is asking the right questions, let alone providing the correct answers.
2. The most important issue in this election is ____.
The loss of civil liberties caused by the endless military adventurism of the federal government. Without these liberties, all other considerations cannot be fought or debated.
3. What specifically should Congress do, if anything, to address rising energy prices?
End the military adventurism from the wars and 700 bases worldwide. The role of global policeman creates a scarcity and the market responds. 2. We need to halt unreasonable environmentalism and drill in Alaska and other potential fields in the Lower 48. 3. The "hidden tax" of inflation can be ended by returning to a gold standard. Increasingly worthless currency is the primary source of high energy costs.
4. If oil and gasoline prices continue to rise, could you support government price controls?
Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional, destructive and immoral to impose price controls. Government interference is what is driving the high costs and Congress is the problem, not the solution.
5. Do you support drilling in ANWR? If the answer is yes, tell us something new that you as a member of Congress can do to open the coastal plain to drilling.
Yes, of course. The statehood act unconstitutionally required that Alaska yield over 60 percent of its land to the federal government. Voters should read Article I, Section 8, clause 17 and it tells you what the federal government is entitled to own: "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings." No other candidate will fight to amend the statehood act, which has prevented Alaska from realizing its full potential. Violating the Constitution has brought us where we are; returning to it will solve the problems.
6. TransCanada has suggested the federal government can help the proposed Alaska gas line by acting as a "bridge shipper." That means the federal government would agree to buy enough gas to fill the line if necessary, or at least guarantee the equivalent revenue stream for the pipeline owner. Will you support legislation to do this?
Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional. The Enumerated Powers Act requires that all federal legislation cite "chapter-and-verse" of the Constitution for authorization. This would not pass muster. But beyond this, it is immoral to use the federal government as a giant "confiscation-and-redistribution" machine, constantly playing one interest against another.
7. Do you support offshore drilling in Bristol Bay?
The 45 years of experience between fishing and petro interests in Cook Inlet, where I live, demonstrates that this is a compatible activity to Alaskans. The state and its people should be the only arbiter of these decisions, not the federal government. As a U.S. Senator, I will fight to keep the federal government out of such a decision, and leave it to the legislature and the people of Alaska.
8. What can the federal government or Congress do to further a natural gas pipeline should state measures such as an AGIA license fail to pass, or fail to "induce" a pipeline?
As a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, I favor the all-Alaska pipeline, something the people voted for loud and clear in 2002. This can be done completely under the control of the state. If the TransCanada proposal fails, hopefully the legislature will see the light. They need to listen to the people once in a while. Again, I view any federal "inducement" (which means money, of course) as unconstitutional. When you accept federal money, you get with it DEPENDENCY and CONTROL. This is the last thing Alaskans should want.
9. Some say oil companies have leased vast public acreage and are now sitting on the leases without drilling. Point Thomson in Alaska has been mentioned as an example. Do you believe this has anything to do with our energy crunch?
"Some say"? These are interesting and perhaps well-founded rumors. "Some say" you ought to add a place called Gull Island. Lindsay Williams, the former chaplain of the Alaska Pipeline project, and who enjoyed executive status during its construction, said that there is abundant evidence that it is the federal government through the executive branch that is preventing this drilling. The Interior Department's designation of the polar bear as an "endangered species" encourages this speculation. Yes, it has a lot to do with driving up prices and breaking the back of the middle class. My previous answers should permit voters to know where I stand. 10. Rural Alaska has been hit particularly hard by high fuel prices. Are there specific steps Congress or a member of Congress should take to address this?
Absolutely not. Again, it is unconstitutional. This candidate wants to actually abide by "the Constitution and nothing BUT the Constitution," with an oath to keep. There is an endless parade of charity for which the government can confiscate people's property. When taxes are not raised, we get the "hidden tax" of inflation, which makes our currency worthless. We need to break this cycle. Rural aid should be a priority for the state legislature, which it is considering.
11. Should Congress continue President Bush's tax cuts to stimulate the economy? Explain.
Tax cuts without SPENDING are just as destructive as raising taxes. The infusion of worthless currency that results from this is a threat to the savings and pensions of every citizen. It amazes me that those who want more government services want to raise taxes yet again . . . but those that want tax relief forget to ask for spending relief as well.
12. How important a priority is reducing the federal deficit? Explain.
Obviously, extremely important for the just-named reasons above. The 10th amendment, if it were actually treated with the regard it deserves, would reduce the federal deficit instantly. Yes, there would be a shock to the economy but "sunset" provisos can reduce this. Yet productivity would soon follow the negative effect of government interference. 13. Should the U.S. tax code be simplified? Is it fair?
The tax code is an outrage and an insult. The IRS is a tyrannical instrument that strikes fear into all citizens. Again, if the Constitution were taken seriously, we would not need a complex tax code, for the government would not be siphoning off the people's labor and honest livelihood.
14. What should the future U.S. role in Iraq be?
None, except to follow the advice of our Founding Fathers: Seek friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none.
15. How long do you believe the U.S. occupation should continue?
Since it is unconstitutional, they should never have gone there at all. I stand for an immediate withdrawal not only in Iraq but from all our bases throughout the world.
16. Should a date be set for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? Explain.
See question #15 above. A gradual withdrawal would be preferable to none, providing that such a withdrawal was admitting the unconstitutionality of our presence there at all. The withdrawal could be effected through Congress' unwillingness to fund the occupation, or to de-fund it incrementally, something the Democratic Party for all its anti-war rhetoric, has failed to do.
17. What role should Congress have in deciding the kind of military approach the U.S. uses in Iraq?
It should have ALL the role, for Article I, Sec. 8, says that Congress, and not the executive, shall have power "To declare war." By conveniently abdicating this important responsibility to the president for the last 58 years, a member of Congress can say, "See? I supported our troops" if a war goes well; but also, "Don't blame me. It was the president that started this. I was just supporting our troops," if it goes badly.
18. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons?
This would be a war of aggression worthy of any fascist dictatorship. Why didn't we do this with North Korea? They are certainly not friendly to us. Or India? Pakistan? Israel? South Africa? It is selective outrage fueled by a compliant propaganda machine by those looking to create a fear in the citizenry to justify endless wars.
19. How good a job is the military and the Veterans Administration doing in providing ongoing care to soldiers and ex-soldiers who served in the war? What specifically would you do to improve services?
Giving the best care science and medicine can provide would certainly be a perfectly constitutional and just function for those who have served. Even though I would disagree with the causes of the wars, it is not the fault of the soldiery, which does not make policy. I have heard that the care in VA hospitals has become disgraceful. If this is true, I would support efforts to correct it immediately.
20. What role do human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases play in global warming: None, some, most, or all? Explain.
Global warming is a complete fraud and is sustained again by a compliant propaganda machine to strike fear into citizens to get them to agree with more government power, taxation and regulations. Because of this fear, unreasonable environmental regulations are created, thus contributing to the high cost of fuel and brings our standard of living perilously close to disaster. It is curious that tens of thousands of scientists, and even the founder of Greenpeace, have spoken of this fraud, yet receive scant or no notice at all. I also recall how the Weather Channel threatened to revoke the license of any meteorologist who did not "toe the party line." Most Alaskans recognize this for what it is. 21. What legislation currently in Congress comes closest to the policy you would advocate for dealing with climate change?
This question is rigged: It is assuming that "climate change" is even a fact at all, let alone human-induced. It ignores the predictions of global cooling. It ignores that the last Ice Age ended some 15,000 years ago and came about through natural cycles. And above all, any such legislation would not pass constitutional muster.
22. Coastal erosion is a serious issue in a number of rural Alaska villages, with discussions about relocating some communities. Do you believe this is appropriate or realistic? Explain.
This is NOT an appropriate function for the federal government as per the 10th amendment. Coastal erosion is a natural process. Furthermore, many Native villages are moved periodically for cultural and economic reasons. Should they also receive federal money? Many Natives have complained that the federal government is eroding their culture. Federal hand-outs will only continue this process. THAT is the real erosion we should be worried about.
23. Is it appropriate to use the polar bear listing as a threatened species to limit oil and gas development in the Arctic or regulate distant greenhouse gas emissions? What other steps, if any, do you think government and industry should take to protect Alaska's polar bear population?
I have already dealt with this fraud in previous questions. The snail darter and spotted owl stories are now being visited upon Alaska through the polar bear. We ended polar bear hunting decades ago. That's the only appropriate action government can take. The idea that climate change can be affected by more taxes or regulations that rob us of our ability to develop the state's resources is a trick that most Alaskans can see through.
24. What's your position on the proposed Pebble mine in southwest Alaska? How do you plan to vote on the "Clean Water" initiative on the August ballot?
The federal government should have absolutely no input as to whether this project comes to development or not. I will vote against Prop. 4 because it is a threat against mining everywhere in Alaska. We have superb state laws regulating our mines. Only a madman wants dirty air or water. Prop 4 is great if you love bureaucrats, litigation, lawyers, unemployment and emptied communities.
25. Are changes needed in the way congressional earmarks work? Under what circumstances should members of Congress be allowed to direct federal spending to specific projects in their district?
Earmarks would not even be an issue if we obeyed the 10th amendment and kept federal projects only to Constitutional functions. I will never vote for or deploy unconstitutional earmarks to Alaska. Federal money is the opiate of the people. I want to bring freedom back to Alaska, not more dependency and control.
26. What should Congress do, if anything, to help increase the supply of doctors in Alaska?
Congress is empowered to "promote the general welfare," NOT to "provide the general welfare," an important difference. The best way to promote the supply of doctors in Alaska is to end socialized medicine, free the doctors of bureaucratic regulations and paperwork, and permit them to do what presumably they do best: Preserve health and save lives.
27. Some major Alaska fisheries have been "rationalized." That is, individual shares have been assigned to fishermen and even to processors. Do you support this approach for more of Alaska's fisheries?
I think a better term would be "rationed" rather than "rationalized." If this is an unjust business practice, it is a question for the state legislature to consider, not the federal government.