The Email Library: (click to read)

May 25th, 2008 - An Educational Experience
Please remember on this Memorial Day Weekend why we are celebrating this holiday and the reasons behind it. Those who have given their lives defending our freedom should never be forgotten.

At this time in the campaign we are deep into ballot access season and most of our time is being spent trying to arrange for ballot access around the country. If it were just a matter of collecting signatures, it might be a relatively easy process, but it is far more complicated than that. To say that I am getting a Doctorate in how we elect a President would be an understatement.

First, I would like to tell everyone about the novel way in which we are going about our candidacy in the various states and our search for a potential Vice Presidential running mate.

Although every state holds its Presidential Election on the same day they are, in essence, holding separate elections for President. With that in mind, we have determined that we do not need the same Vice Presidential candidate in every state and, in fact, can have a different Vice President on the ballot in all 50 states and Guam. (Guam votes for President, Puerto Rico doesn't.)

With a different Vice Presidential candidate in different elections it gives us an opportunity to have a local person in the election and also gives us an extra hand with obtaining ballot access. The $64,000 question then is how does the final Vice President get chosen? My electoral college would choose from all our candidates once I win the election and name the Vice President that would serve with me.

Which brings me to the second point of this letter.

Everyone has heard of the Electoral College, but I know I never gave much thought as to what it really was or where its members came from. Well now I know and that is part of the problem with getting ballot access. Not only does a candidate have to get thousands of signatures in every state in the nation to get on the ballot in each state, but they also have to provide their own electoral college members. That's right, I have to find electors in every state and in some states, such as California, every county in the state.

As an example, in order to get on the ballot in Tennessee I not only need a few signatures from random voters, but I also need 11 electors. I must have 1 elector from every Congressional District (of which there are 9) and then 2 floaters. Then these electors must each gather a few of their own signatures to get me on the ballot.

California is even a worse situation. In California I have to have 1 elector from every county, there are 55 of them, and then collect 186,000+ signatures to get on the ballot. Needless to say, without $500,000 or more I won't be on the ballot in California.

Which brings me to the question of a write-in candidacy in California. Can't you write-in any candidate on your ballot? You can, but they won't even count the votes unless you've qualified as a write-in candidate. I can apply to be a write-in candidate in California, but I still have to find my 55 electors from each individual county in the state. Difficult, yes, but not impossible and a process I am currently starting.

Even more bizarre is the report we got back from a professional ballot consultant on the state of write-in possibilities around the country.

"Writes-ins for president are banned in South Carolina. Write-ins are banned for all offices in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nevada, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

Also the legal director of the Arkansas Secretary of State is saying he won't allow write-ins either, even though Arkansas did allow declared write-in presidential candidates in 1972 and 1976 and the law hasn't changed. Also the New Mexico election director is saying he won't allow them, even though they were allowed in the 1980's and the law hasn't changed.

States that traditionally don't count write-ins (and which have no declaration of write-in procedure) are Iowa, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Actually Washington state has a procedure but they still won't count them (it's outrageous). Also DC has a procedure and they still won't count them either, even though a court in 1975 said they must do so."

As you can see some of the states don't care what the law says, they just aren't going to deal with write-in candidates. Sure you can sue, but that takes a lot of money and besides the election will be long over before one ever gets to court.

Which brings me to the third point of this email which is getting on the ballot in each and every state. This is a difficult process and every state has its own rules. While some states have difficult hurdles to overcome, such as California, they are attainable with enough money and time. Unfortunately we are way short on the money side of things and time wise we are limited by the statutory limits on when one can even gather signatures. However, other states, such as Tennessee have much more achievable requirements which I just received an update on while writing this email.

"Brook Thompson, Tennessee Coordinator of Elections for many years, has changed his interpretation of how an independent presidential candidate gets on the ballot. The old interpretation, in effect for many years, required 25 voters to sign eleven different petitions, each petition to nominate a single presidential elector candidate. The new interpretation requires 275 voters to sign a single petition that lists all eleven presidential elector candidates. Thanks to Matt Erard for this news.

Although it continues to be the case that the list of electors must include one person who lives in each Tennessee US House district, the location of the 275 signers is immaterial. They simply must be registered voters anywhere in Tennessee. Any adult may circulate the petition, regardless of whether the circulator is a Tennessee resident or not. The State Elections Division will furnish the blank petition forms. The deadline continues to be August 21."

The bottom line to all this is that we to get on the ballot in between 30 - 40 states. Will probably be an official write-in candidate in a few more and there are some states (such as Washington State which has really strange rules for signature gathering and won't count write-in's) where we will have no ballot access at all. Not a bad showing at all for a Grass Roots, Independent Presidential Campaign, but it will all require your help and the help of your friends to make it happen.

Please sign up with the NAIP at http://www.newamericanindependent.com/BallotAccess.html to help us with ballot access around the country. Ballot access is the Holy Grail of an independent campaign and it takes a lot of people getting involved to make it happen.
 

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

May 11th, 2008 - Do No Harm
The above saying, which most people rightly attribute to medical doctors, should also become a firm part of every politician's lexicon.

A short time ago I came across a cartoon called "One Big Happy" by Rick Detorie. In it a grandfather and granddaughter are walking through the park and they come across a statue and the following conversation occurs.

Granddaughter: Granpa, who's that a statue of?

Grandfather: Theron B. Oswald, a much beloved civic leader. He did what no other politician had ever done.

Granddaughter: What?

Grandfather: He let well enough alone.

Granddaughter: Cool!

Wouldn't it be nice to have a few politicians like this now and again? Unfortunately, we don't have any politicians like that at all.

A prime example of where politicians have had to do something and passed "feel good" legislation with disastrous results has been in the case of the head-long push into ethanol production.

Sure it sounded good, let's turn corn into oil and power our cars. The farmer's make more money, we control our own fuel source and we stick it to those pesky oil producing countries. Only problem was that they neglected to take into effect what moving a large portion of our food production into the production of ethanol would do. (Remember we have always been the breadbasket of the world)

The first hint of trouble came when tortilla prices in Mexico doubled. Then price increases started marching around the world to the point that we now have food riots occurring on an almost daily basis. The threat of even more starvation around the world has grown and a lot of it started with our politicians' fixation with the converting of corn to ethanol.

I think cartoonist. Ramirez sums it up quite nicely in his editorial cartoon below.

To add insult to injury, we are now learning that the process of converting corn and other food crops to ethanol is not only energy inefficient, but also is using up even more valuable resources such as water and crop land that is needed for, surprise, surprise, food production.

Sure, the politicians are happy, because they can claim to have done something to lessen our dependency on foreign oil (even if it was a bad way to do it). However, look at the misery around the world that our policy towards food is helping to cause.

Way too often our politicians pass legislation that sounds good on its face, but turns out to be far more costly than envisioned, does not really solve the problem nor provide any long-term solutions.

Can anything be done to stop this trend? Only if we elect a President who is willing to do what is right for all Americans first and worry about reelection and opinion polls later. Our President is supposed to be our leaders and leaders need to do what is best in the long-term for those being led, not just what sounds and feels good so reelection is easier.

I promise to be that type of President.

Campaign News:

I am still in discussions with the Reform Party of the United States of American - http://www.reformparty.org/  , Natural Law Party of Ohio - http://ohionlp.org/  and the Independent American Party - http://www.usiap.org/index.htm  for their support of my campaign.

Please sign up with the NAIP at http://www.newamericanindependent.com/BallotAccess.html to help us with ballot access around the country. Ballot access is the Holy Grail of an independent campaign and it takes a lot of people getting involved to make it happen.
 

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

May 4th, 2008 - Spring Is In The Air
With Spring here we've got tornadoes in Virginia and floods in Ohio. It won't be too long before the politicians from Washington will be flying into the disaster areas to spread your money around. In an election year like this, the lure of free publicity and the ability to pander for votes by rushing out with disaster relief money is just too strong a temptation for any politician to ignore.

While it is true that no one or no community can fully prepare for major natural disasters and it requires the help of local, state and Federal officials to help get things back to normal maybe there is a better way to fund these efforts.

However, it has long been my belief that politicians secretly love natural disasters. They are a terrible tragedy, but look at the great opportunity they present to politicians to show that they care and to throw our money around like, well, like it isn't theirs.

For years I've wondered if there shouldn't be a more rational and organized response to natural and other disasters than the current system of knee-jerk politicians swooping in and doling out our money in an attempt to show that they are compassionate and should be reelected to office.

If you have property, it is your responsibility to see that you have the proper insurance coverage to ensure that if something tragic happens you have the coverage to rebuild your house. Unfortunately, I believe that way too many people just assume that the Federal government will cover them in the event of a disaster so they don't worry about it.

With that in mind I, as President, would propose a national disaster insurance fund which would work as follows:

There would be a specific set of disasters covered under the insurance. For example, the policies would cover losses from earthquake, flood, hurricanes and tornadoes.
People and cities would have 5 years to decide to get into the program. After the 5 year transition period were over, if you didn't have the insurance, there would no longer be any Federal assistance to property owners in the event of a natural disaster.
The policies would be sold through existing insurance companies, much as earthquake coverage is currently sold in California.
No one would be forced to buy, but I would assume, much like fire insurance, that anyone who has a mortgage on their house would be required to do so by their lender if they lived in a zone where there was the potential for any of these major disasters. It would also be fiscally prudent for public agencies to ensure their properties as well.
Prices would be kept reasonable by two key facts. There would be a large number of property owners involved in the pool which would spread the risk. The Federal government could subsidize the coverage - the subsidy coming from what is not given out each year in emergency disaster funding.

This program would accomplish several things.

First, it would make people (and cities) responsible for seeing that they do what is necessary to protect their property in the event of a catastrophic loss caused by a natural disaster.

Second, it would take away the ability of the politicians to use our money to further their own political gains - at least in this area of life.

Third, it would establish a true fund to pay for these events.

Fourth, it would allow those people in certain parts of the country to not always feel like their money is being used to support other parts of the country where these things always happen. Whether it is hurricanes in the South or Southeast, tornadoes in the Midwest or earthquakes in California, why should someone in Arizona (where natural disasters are fairly few) be required to contribute their tax dollars to continually rebuilding beach front property or homes in "tornado alley"?

One on the main planks of Presidential Campaign platform is that of personal responsibility and I believe an insurance program of this kind is the responsible thing to do. People should be responsible for taking care of their own problems as much as possible as long as they are provided with the opportunity to do so. If they choose not to participate, well that is their decision and their responsibility.

Campaign News:

I am still in discussions with the Reform Party of the United States of American - http://www.reformparty.org/  , Natural Law Party of Ohio - http://ohionlp.org/  and the Independent American Party - http://www.usiap.org/index.htm  for their support of my campaign.

Please sign up with the NAIP at http://www.newamericanindependent.com/BallotAccess.html to help us with ballot access around the country. Ballot access is the Holy Grail of an independent campaign and it takes a lot of people getting involved to make it happen.
 

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

April 19th, 2008 - Education, Spending & Personal Responsibility
"The education of our children is failing them and we need to spend more money." How often have we heard that before? The solution is always to spend more of your money, isn't it? That has been the "solution" for the last 30 years and it hasn't worked. Just maybe, the solution lies somewhere else.

The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, pay more for educating our children and get less out of it than any other nation on earth. Let me say that again: we, as a nation, pay more for educating our children and get less out of it than any other nation on earth. Why is that? You can blame the teachers' unions, you can blame the government, you can blame bad teachers. Those are all good suspects, but they aren't the main cause of our failing public education system.

The true blame lies at the feet of parents who don't do enough to ensure that their children get the education they deserve.

· Parents, who don't ensure that their children do their homework, are to blame.

· Parents, who don't ensure that their children have enough to eat, are to blame.

· Parents, who don't ensure that their children aren't staying up all night playing video games, watching TV or text messaging their friends, are to blame.

Most of the children who get a bad education should point their fingers directly at their parents or, in a lot of cases, parent and say, "Why didn't you do your job and make sure I studied, did my homework and went to school?"

Having children is a tremendous responsibility and often difficult, but if you choose to have kids it is your responsibility to see that they get the education they deserve and that means you have to work along with them to ensure that it happens. Very few kids want to go to school and learn and unless their parents make them they won't. It is that simple.

Double the amount spent on education with no increase in parental involvement and responsibility and you will see almost no increase in educational gains. Hasn't that been the case for the last 30 years?

Get people to take responsibility for their children's education and you will see huge gains in the education of these same children.

Of course, politicians don't want you to hear this because it doesn't increase their power. They want to be seen as the all powerful OZ and if they can just spend more of your money, they will solve the problem.

And most of the parents of poorly educated children don't want to hear this either. They don't want to take responsibility for their kids' education. They don't want to take the time to make sure their children are doing their homework and doing their best in school. They've been told by the politicians for years that if we just spend more money the education system will get better so you don't have to be involved. They want to believe it. Well, they've been lied to and it's time someone stood up and told the truth.

As your President I will tell the truth about education. I will certainly set education as a top priority of my administration, but I will also tell people that having the government throw money at a problem isn't the only answer. Parents have to be involved in educating their children to make sure they get as good an education as possible. Because if they aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. And no amount of money will fix that.

The facts are the facts. If you want a better education for your children you have to be involved and give it to them. This is one problem the government can never solve on its own, no matter how much of your money they throw at it.

Campaign News:

I am currently in discussions with the Reform Party of the United States of American - http://www.reformparty.org/  , Natural Law Party of Ohio - http://ohionlp.org/  and the Independent American Party - http://www.usiap.org/index.htm  for their support of my campaign.

Please sign up with the NAIP at http://www.newamericanindependent.com/BallotAccess.html to help us with ballot access around the country. Ballot access is the Holy Grail of an independent campaign and it takes a lot of people getting involved to make it happen.
 

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

April 6th, 2008 - Billions and Billions
No, I'm not talking about the number of stars in the sky, I'm talking about the amount of money - your money - that the Democratic candidates are promising every day to give away in their manic drive to "buy" votes and get elected.

It's $30 billion for this and $30 billion for that. Then another $10 billion here and $20 billion there. What sort of world do these people really live in?

Even our current Congress can't keep from passing out money. They just agreed on a $15 billion package to help the homebuilding industry by basically giving most of the money in the bill to the homebuilders themselves to help them get through this rough patch. Aren't these the same companies who were minting money just a year or so ago for several years? Why do we have to give them our money now? Could it be that Congress is buying their future support? Sure appears to be the case.

Quite frankly, all these people are scaring me to death and everyone had better not only hold onto their wallets and bury them deep if they want to hold onto what they earn if either Hillary or Obama get elected. Not that the Republicans have shown any fiscal restraint the last 8 years because they haven't. But the fact of the matter is that both Democratic candidates believe that anyone making over $50,000 a year is "rich" and needs to pay more in taxes to support all of their social programs and their open grab for more power over your everyday life.

All three candidates continually talk about change, but the only change I see coming from all three of them is a lower standard of living for most people because of increased taxation and more government control over our daily lives.

I usually do my own writing, but sometimes I come across an article that I believe needs to be passed along . What follows is just such an article. Ken Blackwell of the New York Sun explains what is going to happen if Obama gets elected and it is not a pretty picture.

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

People need to remember when they are electing a President that they need to look at what he truly believes in and stands for, not what he is saying to get elected. I think there is enough evidence out there that none of the "big three" stand for anything more than more of the same, more social programs, more spending, more attacks on your standard of living and much higher taxes. Let's not let this happen by accepting what the major parties are trying to shove down our throats. Do something to help change the outcome by letting people know there is an alternative and spread the word about my campaign for President.
 

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

February 27th, 2008 - It's Amazing What Happens When...
Between illegal aliens and H1B visa recipients depressing wages, moving factories abroad and free trade agreements, it's a miracle that Americans have any decent wage paying jobs at all.

For some time now I have felt and expressed the views that if our President would only enforce the laws of our country (as he swore to do) that a great deal of our problems with illegal aliens would become self-correcting. Now that Oklahoma and Arizona are doing just that, we have a darn good example of how this will work.

It's amazing, but ever since Arizona's law against employers who hire illegal aliens has gone into effect and is being enforced, the illegal population of Arizona has been decreasing. They are either heading back home to Mexico or over to Texas, California and other states where the same laws do not exist. This shows that enforcing the law does work.

Now if we could only have a President who would do his sworn duty and enforce the laws of the United States we would see a marked change in the overall illegal population of the United States. We wouldn't have to think about rounding up millions of illegal aliens and sending them home. They would do the job for us.

The cost of the illegal population in this country is extremely high and getting higher every day. Examples of these costs abound.

- Lower wages across the board for entry level and low skilled workers. Obama was asked about how this has affected the black population in a recent debate and avoided the question - as he does most direct questions - but it has hurt this segment of our population most.

- Huge social costs when it comes to schools, health care and other social benefits. Estimated at $2 billion (with a B!) a year in Los Angeles County alone, imagine what it must be for the country as a whole!

- Enormous costs associated with dealing with the criminal aspects and criminal elements of the illegal immigration population.

- A deterioration of our infrastructure due to rapid population growth that would not have occurred with the massive numbers of illegal immigrants.

- California is in the midst of "another" budget crisis and I would be willing to bet that the California budget would be closer to balanced versus an estimated $16 billion in the hole if the state wasn't providing for the education and social welfare of millions of illegal aliens and their offspring.

As President I would do one thing to ensure that this situation doesn't happen again; I would make sure our laws are enforced.

Here's my simple, four point plan:

First, I would instruct all agencies under my jurisdiction to strictly enforce and apply the rules against hiring illegal immigrant workers.

Second, I would direct that all instances of employing illegal aliens be subject to penalty by fine and jail time - real jail time, not a "country club" jail. It's real simple for an employer to pay a fine and move on - that's just a cost of doing business. It's not so simple to ignore the threat of real jail time in a real criminal jail. No one wants to face that prospect.

Third, I would do whatever was possible to ensure that illegal aliens in this country would not receive any social benefits.

Fourth, I would move to change the Constitution so that only those born of American citizens become citizens of this country upon birth. The founders of our country could not and would not have ever envisioned the fact that there would be hundreds of thousands of babies born each year in the United States hospitals solely so their parents can use them as an excuse to demand to stay here and take benefits from the rest of us.

It's really that easy. Active and thorough enforcement of our laws will not only solve the current problem, but ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future.

The current administration, in cahoots with Congress, has gone out of their way to sell our country out to business interests wanting cheaper labor by allowing in millions of illegal alien workers and a rapid expansion of the H1B visa program.

It's time for a President who sincerely cares about Americans having jobs with a decent wage. I am ready to be that President.

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

December 9th, 2007 - Health Care, Insurance and the Middle Class
The current health care debate seems to center around those that do not have health insurance. Some of those people don't have it because they are poor, some don't have it because they are young and choose to spend their money or benefits elsewhere and some don't have it because they, for one reason or another, are considered uninsurable. In all of the chatter about health care the Middle Class always seems to get left out of the equation and continues to see their standards of living eroded.

In this email I'd like to talk about one of the major problems looming on the horizon for these Middle Class Americans that do have health care and what I would propose we do about it to ensure that it remains affordable and that coverage doesn't disappear because they've had a run of bad luck health wise.

This past weekend I was involved in holding a benefit, pancake breakfast to help raise money for a woman who needed surgery for her brain cancer. It was a great event and lots of people came together to show their love and support for the woman and her family. It was the type of event that renews your faith in your fellow human beings and makes you glad to belong to the groups you belong to. That's the great part of this email; the bad part is that the event should have been totally unnecessary.

The reason for this fundraiser was because this family's insurance has an annual expense limit and, because of previous cancer treatments, they had reached their benefit limit for the year.

A couple of weeks ago we learned that a friend's wife was going to have to go in for her third brain cancer surgery as soon as possible. They are hoping to be able to get it all this time and solve the problem. Everything was set and everyone was ready and then the real problem hit. It appears that the family had used up its health insurance benefits for the year and the insurance company would not pay for any of the operation and related costs unless they waited until January to have the procedure done. With brain cancer it is rarely a good option to wait.

These are not people who have shirked their responsibilities. The husband has his own plumbing business and they have purchased their own insurance for the family. However, no one ever expects that they will actually run out of insurance coverage, but this is what happened and as I've researched the subject it appears that this happens more and more these days.

As an example, On Thursday, November 29th, the Wall Street Journal had a page 1 article entitled, "As Medical Costs Soar, The Insured Face a Huge Tab". This article told the story of how a person, who has worked all his life and who carries good medical insurance suddenly found himself facing a huge medical bill and potential financial ruin when his lifetime benefits of $1,500,000 were maxed out due to some severe medical conditions (and what I consider fraudulent hospital billing schemes, but I will deal with that in a later email). In fact, the article goes on to state that the majority of people facing financial problems because of medical bills actually do have health insurance.

This appears to be a problem that should be fairly simple to solve, but since it doesn't involve great sound bites and the ability to be a champion of the poor or illegal, our politicians have no interest in dealing with it.

Shouldn't our political leaders be paying attention to make sure that the 260,000,000 of us who have health insurance and are trying our best to take care of ourselves and our families in a responsible way are given the safety net that appears to be needed in the face of rapidly rising health insurance costs and the potential of catastrophic illness or accident? I say that this is a very important part of the discussion and it is getting lost in the sound bites surrounding the uninsured.

Most of you know that I am not a big proponent of giving the Federal Government more control and involvement in our daily lives, but this may be a case of where Federal Government involvement is necessary.

I believe there should be a Federal safety net for people with insurance who, through no fault of their own, use up their health insurance and are left without coverage when they need it most because of a catastrophic illness or injury. People who try to do the right thing (buy or have a job with insurance coverage) should always have the backing of the government for circumstances far beyond their control.

I believe there should be a Federal health insurance pool for people who cannot buy health insurance from traditional sources similar to the Flood Insurance Program currently in place and the Disaster Insurance Program that I have proposed in an earlier email concerning the government's response to disasters.

The true purpose of a Federal health insurance program should be to prevent people from suffering financial ruin when a major medical event happens in their lives, not to pay for every little thing and every time they want to see the doctor. When a governmental program starts to pay for every little thing, it gets abused, our money is wasted and costs spiral even more out of control.

Let's do what is right by all Americans and develop a safety net so that everyone has the ability to be covered against the major medical events and can buy major medical insurance while maintaining some individual responsibility for the day-to-day health care items whether it is through their one's own private insurance policy, an employer insurance policy or by paying for it out one's own pocket.

The health care system in the United States is a huge part of our economy and will only grow larger as our population continues to age. I will have further emails on this subject as we continue towards the election to discuss other parts of the equation that also appear to be in need of adjustment.

"Anything is Possible in America"

Don't forget to ask for your campaign cards
so we can continue to spread the word.

Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still about a long ways away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.


Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

November 11th, 2007 - Changing the World $500 at a Time
Let me start out with three simple statements and then I'll tie them all together.

1. For a long time I have been fascinated by and a big proponent of microlending in the developing world.

2. I am very concerned with our standing in the attitudes of most of the world, especially the developing world.

3. People who have nothing to lose are easy targets for radical groups that want to see the United States and whoever else is convenient to hate, damaged.

Since the mid 1970's, when microlending got its start in India it has helped numerous people around the world get a financial footing under themselves so that they can start to develop a better life for themselves and their families. As the name suggests, microlending basically consists of giving small loans at decent interest rates to people who could never borrow from conventional lenders. The purpose of these loans is to give these people the opportunity to start or expand their own small businesses that generate income. These businesses are often as simple as a one-cow dairy, sewing business or small milling operation. The loans are typically very small - $50 to $1,000. The people who get these loans are usually in the underground economy or living in remote rural areas with the vast majority of the borrowers being women. Often over 95% of total borrowers are women in certain regions of the world.

These loans help to start a positive economic cycle not only for the borrowers, but for those around them. Even at these small loan amounts, historic repayment rates have been very high and most people believe these programs to be an outstanding success.

This leads me into my second point in how do we go about repairing our standing with a great deal of the world, especially the developing world where the majority of our most dangerous enemies are currently coming from.

Why is it that we have given so much foreign aid to a military dictatorship, as we have in Pakistan, with no real positive and often negative results? Have you ever wondered why we are propping up a military dictatorship with our money? Wouldn't our money be better spent trying to help the people in northern Pakistan improve their lives so they might not be so inclined to want to kill us and themselves? Instead we seem to be funding the lifestyles and weapons purchases of people who, as dictators, stand against everything we believe in here in the United States? We've often done the same in Africa and Asia with similar results.

My proposal, therefore, is that we start to take a much larger proportion of our foreign aid dollars and start to invest them where they will do us the most good: a comprehensive microlending program in developing nations.

Let's look at some numbers. $1,000,000,000 (billion dollars) is a lot of money, but it is about the cost of one B-2 bomber. Let's say we were able to take that $1,000,000,000 and go into a country as a microlender. We'll assume that the costs of the program are 25% which will leave us with $750,000,000 to distribute as microloans. If each loan were an average size of $500 that would give us the opportunity to help 1.5 million people build themselves a better future. If we, as a country, help 1.5 million people improve their lives, don't you think that our standing in those people's minds (and those of their friends, relatives and countrymen) will increase as well. Will they be less inclined to join groups that want to kill us? I think so. Plus, these are loans, not grants, so as the loans begin to be repaid we can make further loans to additional people. It is a program with unlimited potential and minimal risk with tremendous side benefits to us as a country.

As your President, I believe it would be far more useful to the long-term health of our country and the world if we were to use a portion of our foreign aid to help the poor of the world to lift themselves out of poverty by giving them economic options through microlending programs. What do you think helps people more? Giving their leaders billions of dollars to buy weapons; food and medicines that may or may not get to those that need it most; and the opportunity to fill their own bank accounts with however much they can steal out of the programs? Or helping the people of those countries with microloans to better their financial standing in their world? I strongly believe that our foreign aid would be much more productive using the millions of dollars spent on one fighter jet to directly help the people of that country.

If elected, I will immediately start to transition a large portion of our foreign aid from weapons and other programs that do not help the common person into a worldwide microlending program. I believe that it will not only improve how the rest of the world looks upon us, it will improve the lives of countless people, making them less likely to want to sacrifice their lives to harm us. When you've got something to live for, you want to keep on living.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

November 4th, 2007 - Spending Our Way to Financial Ruin
Our current political leaders and their political parties are heading us towards financial ruin and if we don't do something about it soon our children and their children will have much lower standards of living. The Republicans and Democrats will never fix the problem as long as they can point at the other party as the cause of the problems and never accept blame themselves. What we need is a true, independent President to force the two parties to get together and work on the problem. I say it can be done through coercion or shame or both, but it will take an independent to do it who doesn't care about getting party members elected, who doesn't care about the next election, show doesn't care about who caused the problem, but who only cares about what is right for the future of all Americans and fixing things now.

I, Frank McEnulty, promise to be that President for you.

Please see the below article for why we all need to be very afraid for our financial futures and why something needs to be done in the next election for President to change the situation.

From: McClatchy Newspapers 2007

WASHINGTON - As presidential candidates largely ignore the issue, looming fiscal challenges threaten to swamp the U.S. economy and erode America's superpower status, several of the nation's foremost experts on the federal budget warned Wednesday.

"We have been diagnosed with fiscal cancer," said David Walker, the nation's comptroller general, or chief auditor, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee.

The committee called the hearing to spotlight legislation that would create a bipartisan panel charged with recommending how to tackle promised spending on federal retirement programs that threaten to bankrupt the U.S. government.

"In the very least, it ought to be the framework that a new Congress and new president put in place," said Leon Panetta, co-chairman of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Clinton-era budget director.

Starting in 2017, Social Security will pay out more than it takes in from tax revenues. Over the next 75 years, that could add $4.7 trillion in present-day value to the federal debt.

However, that pales when compared with projected government health-care spending on retiring baby boomers, the more than 75 million Americans born from 1946 to 1964. Boomer retirement is projected to cost the Medicare system and state-managed Medicaid $33.9 trillion in present value over the next 75 years.

Unless changes are made to benefits and/or revenues, within the next three decades government spending on Social Security and Medicare could account for $1 of every $5 spent in the U.S. economy.

No major presidential candidate has put forward a detailed plan to fix Social Security and Medicare's long-term finances. Many of them acknowledge that there's a pending problem, but they confine their remedies to vague goals they'll seek or modest halfway measures.

Meanwhile, experts say, mounting pressures to spend ever more on health care, fewer active workers to pay taxes to sustain retirees' benefits and growing interest payments on the national debt all could combine to create an unparalleled economic crisis.

If spending on government retirement programs remains on its current course and revenues grow at their historical averages, interest on the debt could grow to nearly 30 percent of the budget by 2040, up sharply from around 9 percent now, the Government Accountability Office estimates.

"Nobody can say when all of this might end up in a crisis," warned Bob Bixby, the head of the budget watchdog group Concord Coalition. Instead of a dramatic flash point, he said, the growing fiscal challenges could mean "a long, slow erosion in the standard of living."

That erosion threatens national security, budget experts warned, because the United States - the world's sole superpower - would slip in stature and see a fast-growing China, a prosperous but aging Europe and a resurgent, nationalistic Russia challenge its economic might. Daily headlines show that it's already begun.

Despite such weighty fiscal challenges, politicians driven by short-term election goals focus on short-term problems. President Bush touts the now-shrinking annual federal budget deficit, the amount that annual spending exceeds tax receipts. The deficit fell from a high of $413 billion in fiscal 2004 to about $163 billion in fiscal 2007.

But that masks what's happened to the gross federal debt, the sum of outstanding debt issued by the federal government. Since fiscal 2001, the federal debt has soared from $5.8 trillion to $8.9 trillion.

Ignoring debt offers a false sense of security, Walker warned. He said that unfunded liabilities - costs such as Social Security benefits that the government has promised boomers but hasn't begun paying yet - grew by $3 trillion in fiscal 2007 to $53 trillion.

"Health-care costs are the key fiscal problem for the budget," said Bill Novelli, the chief executive officer of AARP, the powerful lobby for seniors. He urged lawmakers to look beyond simplistic solutions such as reducing benefits or tweaking revenues. What's needed, he said, is an effective method to contain health-care costs, which are rising much faster than inflation or wages.

The proposal for the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action comes from Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the chairman and the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

"I think we're reaching a defining moment," Conrad warned the assembled budget experts, who all agreed that tough decisions must be made sooner rather than later.

In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told senators that the right time to start addressing fiscal challenges "is about 10 years ago."

McClatchy Newspapers 2007
 

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

October 15th, 2007 - Fiscal Irresponsibility
There are fewer topics concerning our current political landscape that get me more upset than the fiscal irresponsibility of our Congress and President. As President, I promise to veto any and all bills that include the barrels of pork as discussed below. If we don't get our country back on a footing of fiscal responsibility soon, we are going to leave a bankrupt, second level economy to our children and grandchildren. The President is our leader and he needs to act like one and do what is right for the country now and in the future.

Under the "fiscal restraint" of the Republicans our deficit has ballooned and spending has increased (even ignoring the war in Iraq) at a greater pace than at almost any time in the history of our country. There was the hope and, as we were promised by the Democrats during the last Congressional elections, that they would show some fiscal restraint and get the country back on a path of fiscal responsibility. Well, based on the current negotiations over a water projects bill (the Water Resources Development Act) for the Army Corps of Engineer, that "promise" has already been forgotten and we are back to business as usual.

Originally, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers requested a budget of $4.9 billion for works they identified as necessary. However, once Congress got their hands on the bill it ballooned to around $14 billion in the Senate and around $15 billion in the House. Of course a rational person would think, "Well that's pretty bad, but hopefully when they reconciled the two bills calmer heads would prevail and cut some of those costs." Nope, not with this bunch of drunken sailors. By the time it came out of committee the total cost of the bill had risen to $23.2 billion.

How does a bill go from a request from the people who are planning to actually spend the money on the projects of $4.9 billion to a total of $23.2 billion? An increase of almost 400%. Is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers so incompetent that they can't see all the projects that need to be done to keep our country safe? I don't believe so and neither should you.

Rather, over $18 billion of your money was added to the bill so the members of Congress could add almost 900 items of Pork Barrel spending and special-interest boondoggles to pay off their supporters at home.

Examples of these extra and often unnecessary projects (per the Heritage Foundation) include:

• Funding for a study on the impact on navigation of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge (renamed "Don Young's Way" in SAFTEA-LU) at Cook Inlet in Alaska (Section 4005);
.
• Riverfront development to enhance recreation in Perth Amboy, New Jersey (Section 4048)
.
• Authorization of $5,300,000 for the construction of Lake Lanier Olympic Center in Georgia (Section 5061)
.
• Authorization of $65,000,000 for a Lido Key Beach, Florida, replenishment project (Section 3036)
.
• $21,000,000 for Imperial Beach, California, beach replenishment
.
• $101,000, 000 for beach replenishment at Ocean City, Sea Isle City, and contiguous New Jersey seashore resorts
.
• $59,000,000 for central New Jersey seashore beach replenishment
.
• $122,000,000 for beach replenishment in northern New Jersey
.
• $10,600,000 for beach replenishment on Pawley's Island, South Carolina
.
Behind the diversion of taxpayer money from essential flood safety programs to geographically and seasonally limited recreation activities like the Corps' beach replenishment program is a trade association-the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA)-that represents seaside resorts. Also involved are lobbying firms that specialize in obtaining resort-oriented earmarks, among which is Marlowe & Co., a firm that also represents the ASBPA and serves as a contact on the Association's press release.
Assuming that Marlowe was describing his company's success accurately, one has to wonder exactly how his firm was allowed to participate so intimately in the congressional budgeting, authorizing, and appropriations processes. Indeed, as these and other earmarks suggest, and as the lobbyists' own promotional materials imply, Congress and the congressional committees responsible for water resources and the Army Corps of Engineers have effectively privatized some portion of the congressional budget process to the K Street lobbying firms and appear to have allowed them wide latitude in selecting what projects are included in the legislation.
Now you can't blame just the Democrats for this because it appears that all the little piggies lined up at the trough for this one. The Democrats are in charge of the most important committees, but they let the Republicans pile on as well so that if President Bush actually shows some fiscal restraint and vetoes the bill (amazing how he'll now veto things since they come from Democrats) they will have enough votes lines up to override the veto.

If this were an isolated incident it might not matter much, but unfortunately, this seems to be the way Congress operates on a regular basis with the approval of the President and it will lead to a severe financial downturn for all Americans before too much longer.

That is why I continue on with my campaign to be President of the United States. We need someone running this country who will take fiscal responsibility seriously and, as far as I can tell, none of the front runners for the job from either party have demonstrated much fiscal restraint in their careers.

Most of the problems that arise with a country can be dealt with fairly easily if that country is operating on a firm foundation of fiscal restraint. Think of your own lives. If you have a reserve to fall back on, you can weather problems much easier than if you are living hand-to-mouth and have absolutely no back-up or reserves.

We cannot, as a nation, continue to be this fiscally irresponsible. Like the past several years of real estate madness, it's all fun and games while the good times last, but when they come to an end, they come to an end very hard. If our government continues to spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave we, the people who end up paying the bills, are all going to wake up with a major hangover one day soon.

Remember, it is your money and it should be spent responsibly. It is up to the President to do whatever he can to ensure that happens and I will do exactly that.

Even to just find a fiscally responsible President, you just may have to look outside the normal places.

Remember Anything is Possible in America
Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still 13 months away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

October 9th, 2007 - The High Cost of Illegal Aliens
The other day, LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

"Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers," said Antonovich. "In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year -- this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education."

So a simple guess of the cost to American taxpayers for the illegal alien onslaught in Los Angeles County alone is easily in excess of $2,000,000,000 a year if you assume there are as few as 100,000 illegal aliens in the school system (there are probably many times more than that).

Multiply that by what the other counties, cities and states around our country are spending and you come up with a huge amount probably in excess of the budget deficits of most of those entities.

Of course, the argument is that if we don't have the illegals, who will do the work. Lately we've been hearing about all the problems farmers are going to have getting their crops picked if they don't get the illegal's to do it, because no one else will.

What they fail to mention is that no one else will do it for the artificially low wages they are able to pay to get the work done because the President has allowed so many illegal aliens to get into the country.

As an example, we are hearing constantly now that food prices will soar if farmers have to pay more for people to harvest their crops. The facts are that this is a bold faced lie.

From a UC Davis study found at this site, I was able to find the following information:

How much would farm worker wages increase if some of these immigrant workers were not available? In 1966, one year after the end of the bracero program, the fledgling United Farm Workers union won a 40 percent wage increase for table grape harvesters. Average hourly farm-worker earnings were about $7.56 for US field and livestock workers in 2000, according to a USDA survey of farm employers, and another 40 percent increase would raise them to $10.58.

If a 40 percent farm-worker wage increase were fully passed on to consumers, and if there were no farm productivity improvements in response to higher farm wages, the 5-6 cent farm labor cost of a pound of apples or a head of lettuce would rise to 7-8 cents, and the retail price would rise from $1 to $1.02-$1.03.

A large increase in farm wages translates into a small retail cost increase because: (1) farm labor is a third of farmers' costs; and (2) farmers receive only a fraction of the retail price of food. For a typical 2.5-person consumer unit, a 40 percent increase in farm worker wages that led to a three percent increase in retail fresh fruit and vegetable costs would increase the spending of a typical consumer unit by $9 a year, raising expenditures from $301 to $310.

My question to all Americans is, therefore, fairly simple. Wouldn't you rather have people abiding by our laws and working legally even if it cost you an additional $9.00 a year (or $20.00 a year for your fruits and vegetables if all farm workers got a 100% raise in wages). At a 100% increase in wages, don't you think it would be a lot easier to find workers for the fields?

Wouldn't the small increase in our food bills be more than offset by the billions of dollars we would save in our taxes every year that we are currently spending to support the illegal alien community? I say, "YES."

The facts are simple. The President and his administration have conspired with the large business and agricultural interests in our country to artificially depress and hold-down wages. They have done this at a tremendous cost to all law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens and it needs to stop now!

The President is responsible for seeing that the laws of our nation are enforced and upheld. I promise to be that President and will never sell out the vast majority of Americans to the interests of big business and agricultural interests for illegal, cheap labor.

"Anything is Possible in America"
Thanks for your continued support and please remember to tell everyone you know about my efforts. The election is still 13 months away and with your help I am continuing to make progress every day.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

September 9th, 2007 - Meddling Where they Don't Belong
 Or, how the Federal Government will probably make the sub-prime mess even worse than it already is likely to become and waste your tax money in the process.

Before I get into what I believe the Federal Government shouldn't be doing concerning the subprime melt-down and why, I'd like to make a simple point. Most people in America do not have sub-prime mortgages. Heck, a lot of people don't even have mortgages, so why should all of those without sub-prime mortgages or no mortgages at all be responsible for paying for the problems of those that have difficult mortgages?

That being said, it appears that the subprime melt-down is causing a lot of problems for quite a few people. Of course that can mean only one thing. It must be time for the Federal Government to meddle where it doesn't belong - in other words, what can they do to make it look like they are helping so that they can buy your votes?

The current mortgage mess was brought on by one simple factor - GREED. Greed on the part of mortgage lenders, greed on the part of Wall Street and greed on the part of borrowers. There is an old saying that goes, "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." Right now the hogs of the mortgage business are getting slaughtered and I'm of the opinion that it is NOT the business of the Federal Government to get involved in bailing out individual homeowners for three major reasons.

First, this is a market correction that is long overdue. Real estate prices had been spiraling out of control for a while now in quite a few parts of the country. Here in California, housing price increases were completely out of control and a lot of people knew a correction was in the offing and in fact, that a correction was needed. When the stock market got out of control during the Internet boom and then had it's massive correction, did the Federal Government bail out all of the people who got hurt by the massive devaluation of the stock market - NO. So why should they now?

Second, who gets bailed out? There are a lot of different types of people who may or may not get hurt by this market correction. Let's make a partial list.

Homeowners who have normal loans or no mortgages at all - No concern here except for the fact that their tax money will get spent on any bailout and is that really fair?

Property owners with subprime loans - This is where it gets complicated because not all of these people are created equal.
1. We have the investors who were out there using the easy credit to buy homes like there was no tomorrow. Should they get bailed out of their bad loans? Most people would say no, because they were taking a risk and deserve what they got because they were being greedy.

2. We have homeowners who have subprime loans who are not in danger of losing their homes because they budgeted properly. Should we make the lender change the terms on their loans because, well in retrospect, they just don't seem fair? Doesn't seem likely and definitely isn't the job of the Federal Government.

3. We have homeowners who have subprime loans who may be in danger of losing their homes, but even this is not a simple category.

There are those that just bought too big a house for their income - Do we reward their greed by having the Federal Government bail them out at our expense so they can live in a bigger house than they should reasonably have for their income levels? This doesn't seem right to me.

There are those who bought the right amount of house several years ago, but with rising housing prices and easy refinancing they have refinanced several times always taking money out to buy cars, boats, home improvements, etc and now find that they can't afford the payments. Do we reward their greed by having the Federal Government bail them out at our expense because they made bad decisions about using the equity in the house for things it shouldn't be used for? This doesn't seem right to me.

There are those that just bought at the top of the market. I guess the same could be said about all of those people who bought stocks in the last year before the Internet crash, but did we bail them out? No, so why is it the business of the Federal Government to bail out individual homeowners now? I contend it isn't.

Third, a bail out is not fair and sets a very bad precedent. What is fair about using our tax money to bail out people who made bad decisions or were greedy? What happens the next time there is a stock market downturn? Since we bailed homeowners out of bad loans, do we now use our tax money to bail people out of bad stock investments? Also, doesn't it set a precedent for encouraging risky behavior.

With the Federal Government so anxious to bail someone out, just who do they think they should give the bailout to at this time? Is it investors, homeowners with good loans, homeowners with "bad" loans that are okay, greedy subprime borrowers or just borrowers with bad timing. Unfortunately, it will probably come down to where they think they will get the biggest bang for "our" dollars when it comes to voting in the next election. It will have little to do with what is really the right thing for the market or whether or not it is even the job of the Federal Government to get involved in this way, but a lot more to do with how they can buy our votes in the next election.

Market corrections are a natural part of a market economy. They are important and necessary for any market and usually good for the market overall. If a market gets out of control, like the housing market had become, the correction can be rather strong, but it is only that, a correction. A market correction, while painful for some, will usually produce an overall net benefit - in this case greater housing affordability.

The Federal Government's responsibility in this matter runs towards how the Federal Reserve controls the interest rates in the country. They should have been Statesmen and raised rates when it was recognized by almost everyone that the market was overheating due to extremely easy credit. Instead they chose to let the party continue out of control until people started getting hurt and the cops had to be called in.

The proper time to have done something was when the market was overheating in the first place by tightening credit so that it wouldn't have gotten so out of hand. However, no one in government ever wants to be accused of spoiling everyone's "fun" as that just causes them to lose votes. Once again, that is why we need Statesmen running the country and not politicians. Statesmen make the hard decisions and do what is right for the country regardless of whether or not it makes them unpopular in the instant. Politicians do everything for votes.

Going forward the proper role of the Federal Government should be to set fair interest rates for the overall economy, to let the market take its course and to work with the states to ensure that lending practices are fair and reasonable for all potential home buyers.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

August 23rd, 2007 - The Tort Tax
Personal responsibility is just that - personal. If you do something stupid and you get injured or hurt, then it is your own fault. It's not McDonald's fault if you get fat, it's not Phillip Morris' fault if you smoke and get lung cancer; it's your fault. One of the biggest problems facing America is that many people want to find someone to blame for everything that happens to them. Well sometimes it's your own fault, sometimes it's just bad luck and sometimes it is truly someone else's fault. But let's get away from this victimhood mentality and back to standing on our own two feet and taking responsibility for our own actions.

After being out of the country for two weeks, one of the first news reports I saw on early morning television in Miami concerned an accident at a carnival. From the report, it appears that a teenage girl got injured when she went on the tea cup ride at a carnival, got too dizzy and fell and hit her head. So naturally, at least in this country, they were going to sue.

Let me get this straight, isn't the purpose of the tea cup ride to go in circles as fast as you can to get dizzy? Don't you actually turn a wheel in the middle to make it spin even faster? Isn't that why people, like me who can't deal with being dizzy, don't go on that type of ride? Does the ride operator have to conduct pre-ride tests to determine if the person going on the ride can't deal with dizzy? Even then, they would probably be sued by people who felt they were unjustly kept off the ride.

We engaged in some fairly risky behavior in Costa Rica. We took a zip line tour through the jungle trees. We drove, including the underage members of our families, ATV's across the beach and through the jungle at high rates of speed. We went snorkeling in the open ocean. We took numerous small boats across the ocean and down crocodile filled rivers. Never once did we sign a liability waiver or a notice that we were engaging in hazardous activities that could result in injury or death. Could we have gotten hurt? Yes, and there were some minor injuries from the ATV excursions, but it was up to us as adults to determine if we wanted to engage in the activities and take the risks associated with them.

The explosion of liability lawsuits and the desire of people to want to sue for just about any perceived injury or injustice are completely out of control in this country. How many millions of decisions are made every day based on the fact that, "We better do this to cover ourselves in case we are sued"? Not because it is necessary, but just as insurance from getting sued.

How often have you heard even children say something about suing someone for some perceived wrong. It has become a national mindset and it is not good for the country.

The Tort Tax is a major drain on this country. It has been estimated recently by authors McQuillan and Apramyan that our current legal system and the desire of everyone to sue is costing this country as much as $865 billion per year, or to put it another way, $9,827 per year for a family of four. If people were actually paying this amount directly out of their pockets there would be revolt in the streets, but instead, this is a hidden levy on all Americans and costs each of us every day.

Here's where the costs come from and how we get hit with those costs every day.

First, there are the costs of litigation which are added to the cost of every product we buy every day. No matter what anyone makes these days there is the very real chance that someone is going to sue the maker of that product because they were "hurt" using it. Doesn't matter if they did something entirely stupid, surely the manufacturer is still somewhat to blame. Next time you are in a hardware store look at all the warnings on ladders to see all the ways the manufacturer has to warn the user to try and prevent themselves from getting sued and it still doesn't prevent that from happening. In our office building there was an entire law firm that did nothing but represent ladder makers against lawsuits and they had to move because they needed more room for more lawyers.

Second, medical liability is a major factor in increasing health care costs. The fear of being sued has prompted many doctors to routinely engage in defensive and expensive medical practices by ordering extra tests and sending people to specialists just to cover themselves in case some one decides to sue. It has also caused a severe shortage in several medical specialties such as obstetrics as doctors just get tired of being sued for things that are completely out of their control.

In the current health care debate the question needs to be asked, "How many more people would have health insurance coverage if the cost of medical insurance was much lower?" Also, an interesting side note is that in the medical systems that Michael Moore held out to be excellent examples of universal care around the world there is almost no recourse for medical malpractice, regardless of how incompetent the doctors might be.

Third, innovation is also stifled by the cost of litigation in this company. It doesn't matter how well a product works or what benefit it has if there is the slightest chance that someone can figure out a way to improperly use it and hurt themselves. Also, as companies have to pay ever increasing costs for their product liability insurance they have even less to spend on developing new products which, in turn, causes less economic growth.

The bottom line of all this is that, as President, one of the main aspects of American life that I would attempt to reform would be that of legal liability. I'm not for letting someone off the hook if they truly develop a faulty product and put it in the marketplace or if they are truly responsible for injuring someone else, but at the same time we need to be a nation of adults and take responsibility for our own actions.

How would I work to reform legal liability since most liability questions are state issues and not the responsibility of the Federal government?

I would do so by appointing Federal judges who believe that people should be responsible for their own actions.
I would appoint Federal judges who believe that life itself is risky and that sometimes bad things just happen and no one is at fault.
I would appoint Federal judges who believe that it should be easier for people who are sued to collect their defense costs when they beat those that sue them.
I would appoint Federal judges who believe that the practice of medicine is not an exact science and that unless doctors make blatant errors that maybe they aren't to "blame" when things don't work out exactly how people believe they should.
I don't know about you, but this family of four could sure use an extra $9,000 worth of purchasing power that we don't have now because of the cost of everyone always wanting to sue and win the legal lotto.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

August 15th, 2007 - The New Right to Life
I was out of the country for a couple of weeks and did my best to not watch news, read newspapers or hear about world events while I was gone. As we were at a jungle lodge in Costa Rica with no phones, no TV, no internet and, sometimes, no electricity, it was easy to do. Being away from the constant barrage of information, opinion and attitudes we live under each day can help give one a fresh perspective on things.

Of course, I did hear about the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota. Unfortunately, in one of my earlier emails of the campaign I discussed the poor state of the infrastructure in our country and this accident and all the subsequent hand-wringing has proved my statements to be correct. Even President Bush surprised me when he took the very uncharacteristic stance of saying that we didn't need an additional gas tax to fix the problem, but maybe we should be spending the money we have in more effective and meaningful ways. I will admit that I called for an additional gas tax earlier to deal with this problem, but in this case the President is right. We need to just manage our money and what our Federal agencies do a lot better. Maybe a lot of the problem is that our Federal agencies are involved in and spending money to try and control things that they shouldn't be doing.

A perfect example of that is the main purpose of today's email and concerns a topic that was in the Wall Street Journal last week and from which I borrowed my title. The title, "The New Right to Life" concerns the struggle of the dying to try experimental drugs, alternative therapies and whatever the heck they want to do and the great lengths the FDA goes to prevent that from happening.

There is something seriously wrong with a Federal Agency trying to control what someone who is dying wants to try to do to solve the problem or prolong their life.

Quite honestly it is none of their damn business.

So what if someone wants to try something that is not "proven". Maybe it will make a difference for them or to the next person with their disease. Maybe it will show promise for curing something else. Maybe it will give that person's life just a little more meaning.

So what if what they try hastens their demise? It was their choice and they went down fighting. Isn't that what life is all about? Fighting for everything we've got and then fighting to keep it. Isn't that what liberty and being an American is about? The freedom to do what you believe is right for yourself as long as you are not in danger of bringing harm to others.

Prior to leaving on our trip I read yet another article about the FDA that left me stunned. It was about an action taken by the FDA concerning a new drug. The drug passed all its tests. There weren't any problems with the drug and yet, the FDA in its infinite wisdom, decreed that the drug wasn't necessary (there was already another couple of drugs on the market that treated the same problem) so the company couldn't make it.

So now the FDA is deciding what the market does and doesn't want or need. Are we becoming a centralized state where all production decisions are made according to what some central planning group, in this case the FDA, determines what is good for the country? Didn't the Soviets spend decades proving that this type of system doesn't work? If so, why do we seem to be heading down this path?

The answer is bureaucratic power. Our Federal Government is drunk with the power of the bureaucracy and the two major political parties will do nothing to slow that growth because they both thrive on it.

The most dangerous words in the English language these days are: "It's for the public's safety." Those words seem to give the Federal government the power to do just about anything they want to reduce your liberty in the interest of your perceived safety. Doesn't matter if it is really necessary or even prudent, but it sure is a nice excuse for a government bureaucrat to expand his power base and build an empire on the backs of our freedoms.

The Constitution is the best document every written to protect individual liberties, but Federal Agencies seemed to have morphed into these monsters that believe that you only have liberty if they want to give it to you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the abolishment of the FDA as it does serve a useful purpose, but if you're dying and want to try something not approved by the FDA, be my guest. It's your life and you deserve the dignity and respect of being allowed to do what you feel is best for you.

As President, I would call for all government agencies to "pull in their horns" and get back to their core responsibilities. Our Federal government is already too large and close to being completely out of control. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect our liberty, not subject us to ever increasing federal regulatory schemes.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

July 25th, 2007 - Squandering Our Future
Government spending is totally out of control and we can't rely on the two major political parties to do anything about it.

There have been many reasons given as to why the Roman Empire fell. One of the most compelling is that they basically squandered their resources and spent themselves into a hole from which they could never recover. When bad times came they did not have the reserves necessary to see them through. That made the bad times a lot worse and a lot longer than they would have been if they had been a little better at saving for the future.

I see a lot of parallels with the United States of today and I would like to provide one small, concrete example.

Last week I was driving through Marina Del Rey, California and as I passed by the Ritz Carlton I happened to notice a whole lot of Sheriff's officers standing around the entrance to the hotel. This struck me as strange and I wondered who was staying at the hotel to require all this extra security. Over the weekend I talked with one of my Sheriff friend's and found out that all the extra security was there because Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was staying at the hotel and that I probably only saw a small portion of the Sheriff's deputies that were actually helping to provide security.

The more I thought about this, the more upset I became. This is a really nice hotel on the water in a very expensive part of town. What was a government official doing staying at a hotel like this at our cost? Now, if it were just him staying at the hotel you could almost say, "Okay, he's the boss of a huge agency and deserves to stay somewhere nice on the road". However, I know that he doesn't travel alone and I hate to think what he and his entourage staying at this hotel cost us, the American people.

Let me put it in perspective. I just looked up what a room costs at the Ritz Carlton, Marina Del Rey and the cheapest room is $399 a night and they go up from there. Like I said before, it is a very nice hotel. I'm fairly certain that the Secretary did not stay in the cheapest room and even with discounts I'm sure his group was costing the American people thousands of dollars a night in room charges. Of course, if you stay in a hotel like this you are probably also eating in the hotel now and then and that is also very expensive. All in all, I bet this was a very expensive stay for the taxpayers of this country to be underwriting.

On it's own this may not be a big deal, but this is just one stay by one government bureaucrat. When you add up all the government employees running around the country at our cost it must add up to a huge amount of money. That cost could be trimmed by an fairly large amount if,starting at the top, the people working for our government started spending our money as if it were actually coming out of their pocket.

The problem these days with government officials is that they have no basis in reality when it comes to spending our money. Allocating money for bridges to nowhere, monuments to themselves, $400 haircuts (John Edwards), raising hundreds of millions of dollars for campaigns and spending it like drunken sailors to get reelected gives public officials a very bizarre sense of entitlement and privilege. It's not their money so how can they use it to get reelected seems to be their mantra. When they run out, they'll just raise taxes or issue more debt. What a great system it is for them. They are no longer public servants, but government Princes and Princesses overseeing their own fiefdoms.

Well the system needs to be changed and one of the main platforms in my campaign for President is fiscal responsibility. I grew up lower middle class and have had to work my whole life so I know the value of a dollar and appreciate the work that most Americans put out to earn those dollars.

The current crop of politicians running for President from the major parties have no concept of fiscal responsibility. Their fiscal policies are based on what they believe is best for the Party and best to get them reelected, not for what is best for the country as a whole, both now and in the future.

A leader looks to establish policies that are best for the country in the long-run and for all. I am running to be that leader. We need fiscal responsibility and we will not get it from either major party.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

July 19th, 2007 - The Politics of Fear
Fear is a very potent ally to those who seek power and control. Fear keeps us dependent; fear keeps us defensive; and fear sells newspapers and garners television ratings.

Do the following statements sound familiar?

Terrorism - 7/17/07 - Washington - The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the United States. The declassified key findings, to be released publicly on Tuesday, were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

During the Illegal Immigration Debate - If we don't keep letting in millions of illegal immigrants we'll have no one to do all the menial jobs that keep the economy going and we'll have economic collapse because Americans won't do the work.

During the Health Care Debate - If we don't have universal "free" health care people will be dying in the streets and diseases will run rampant because people won't be able to afford the medicines they need.

These types of statements appear to be all we hear from politicians and political parties these days. Nothing but negative, doom and gloom and why only the government can save us from imminent death and destruction.

What happened to the America that believed in itself and believed that we could accomplish just about anything if we put our mind to it. What happened to the America that put men on the moon? What happened to the America that solved problems and that was looked up to by the rest of the world?

Politicians and their divisive political parties are what happened.

If we, as a nation, are willing to believe in ourselves and believe in our abilities to solve problems by working together, then we don't need the politicians and their government programs as much as they want us to think we do. I, for one, believe anything is possible if we work together.

So back to the negative statements that started this email.

We've been hearing that Al-Qaida has been out to kill us all since the 9/11 attacks and it is probably true. However, what is the purpose of the government continuing to tell us that we are in imminent danger of attack? Is it so that we will be more vigilant? They are not asking us to do that. Do they want us to all go out and arm ourselves in case of attack? No, most governmental officials would prefer that we have no way of defending ourselves so that we are totally beholden to the government for protection. No, the entire purpose of continuing to remind us that Al-Qaida is going to kill us all any day is to mentally make us more reliant on the government every day for our protection, safety and welfare. That is not the American way.

Let's talk about the illegal immigrant problem. The main reason everyone likes illegal immigrants is because they do, for the most part, work hard and, more importantly, they work cheap. There are always people to do just about any job for the right wage, but when you can get illegal workers to do it for less, why not. Would the economy have collapsed if we didn't have millions of illegal immigrants doing all sorts of menial jobs? I doubt it. Someone would have done the work; it just may have cost a little more to get it done. Out here in California we have a fast food chain called In-N-Out. They sell hamburgers, a lot of hamburgers and have somewhat of a cult following. They are also privately held, make a lot of money and pay their employees better than almost every other fast food restaurant there is in Southern California. It's amazing, but you go into an In-N-Out and it is full of legal, high-school age kids who are working hard and making a decent wage for their work. According to the pro-illegal immigration people, these workers really shouldn't exist because no American will do those jobs. There are lots of examples like this. So why the fear? Because it gives politicians more control over the country.

I spoke about health care in my last email to you and probably don't need to go over it again other than to say that this is the Presidential Election's #1 Fear. Each party is claiming that they have the only real solution to the health care crises so you'd better vote for them or people will be dying from lack of health care. What we will get instead is another "Patriot Act" of health care that will be cobbled together on the fly to get someone elected, because it sounds good. Chances are, in all practicality it will probably hurt more people than it helps.

My point in all this is that we need a leader to emerge from this next election who will do what is best for Americans and America in both the short and long run. Will accentuate the positive and do their best to keep the negatives down to a minimum. Nothing good ever gets done as a result of governmental policies developed out of fear mongering and no country ever moved forward based on fear. Fear only causes people to hold back and not progress forward. That is what our politicians want us to do today so that they can continue to expand their hold on everything we do in our lives and gather more power to themselves.

Maybe this if fear mongering on my part, but it is what I see happening more and more every day.

My campaign slogan says it all, "Anything is Possible in America". I truly believe that and believe that doing what is best for America is the same as doing what is best for each individual American.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

July 12th, 2007 - Health Care Reform
From all the early indications, it appears that the biggest issue coming in the 2008 election is how we "fix" healthcare. If you believe the candidates, Congress and other special interest groups, you'd think there are people dying in the streets due to a lack of medical care. I don't see that happening here in the Los Angeles area and we are overrun with millions of uninsured illegal aliens. Our emergency rooms are overcrowded, but everyone appears to be getting the care they need.

What scares me the most and should scare everyone else as well is that the politicians are going to whip everyone into a frenzy over health care and then pass some poorly thought-out, politically correct, special interest adjusted version of a national health care bill without ever sitting back and asking one simple question, "What is in the best interest of all Americans?"

Instead of their usual thinking along the lines of, "What is going to get me reelected?"; "What is going to get me on TV the most?; "What is going to make my big donors the most happy so I can get a cushy, lobbyist job from them when I quit being a public servant", for once they need to think of just, "What is in the best interest of the American people now and for the long-run?" Unfortunately, I don't believe that either Congress or a major party President will look at the situation and the answers from that stand-point.

Right now the debate is caught up in partisan politics and that is just wrong for something as important as this issue. Congress must be called on to work as one to come up with the best solution for all Americans, including Congress - no separate deal for them this time.

Here's are some preliminary thoughts on the subject.
First, let me say I believe that most people are fairly happy with their health care and how it is provided. If you work for an employer that provides insurance you are in pretty good shape. It's estimated that there are 40-47 million Americans, about 15%, who don't have insurance. So 85% have some sort of health insurance - not bad. Not 100%, but still, in a free market economy, not a bad number.

Today, less than 15% of total health care expenditures today are actually paid by the patient. Most people don't know what anything costs, or even care, as long as the insurance covers it. We leave it up to the doctors and insurance companies to argue about what and how much should be paid. As a result, costs are spiraling ever higher and in many ways service is getting worse.

Insurance companies spend a tremendous amount of health care money on administration to make sure they make a profit and limit the cost of services they provide to the patient. Recent estimates indicate that up to 25% of health care spending goes towards administrative costs - over $500 billion annually. That would buy a tremendous amount of health care for not only the uninsureds, but the rest of us as well.

Since the doctors are paid by the insurance companies, they really work for the insurers and not the patients. Shouldn't your doctor work first for you, the patient?

Truly something is out of whack with a system like this, but how should we adjust it to make more sense for the individual who needs health care?

Here's an interesting first thought from Greg Scanlon of Consumers for Health Care Choices that makes good, common sense. He advises the following: "The first step in preserving what's good in the American health care system while purging the problems would be by giving patients direct control over their health care dollars. Instead of buying coverage for employees, private employers should give workers the money to buy whatever coverage they want. Should employees opt for relatively less expensive coverage, they ought to be allowed to keep the balance to cover the out-of-pocket expenses of routine care. This is effectively the approach under medical savings accounts."

In addition to that, I believe there should be a tax credit for uncovered medical expenses to help insure the self-employed and others who do not have or choose not to buy any insurance.

In order to truly reform health care in this country, the consumers of the health care must be involved and make decisions. Give the American health care consumer choice and responsibility. Only then will costs start to decrease and quality increase. Look at almost any industry in this country, when consumers have a voice, the products get better and the costs come down. It's time to use the same principles here.

This is a very complicated matter and one that should not be rushed into without a lot of thought and without of lot of NON-PARTISAN ideas being weighed as to just what would be the best solution for the country and all Americans as a whole. Whatever final shape the solution would ultimately take, I will promise you one thing right now, whatever bill is proposed and passed I, as President, will only sign it into law if it covers all Americans including Congress. This is too important an issue to allow Congress to pass something that they can opt out of as they have with Social Security. If they are required to be involved in the program, it will probably be a better program.

I will provide more specific details at a later date as to how I believe a rework of the health care system should be done and how extensive those changes should be at this time. In the interim I will be researching the pros and cons of several different solutions and welcome your feedback and ideas.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

June 27th, 2007 - Enforce Our Laws First
The President and Congress believe that with people on summer vacation they can cram an extremely bad immigration bill through without notice. The President and Congress are in the process of selling us out again to special interests, I strongly feel the need to update and reiterate my position on illegal immigrants and what we must do as a country to deal with the situation now and in the future.

The biggest problem with the immigration law that the President and Congress are trying to pass isn't that we are rewarding a bunch of law breakers, it isn't that we are setting up millions of people for lower wages, it isn't that we are rewarding businesses for hiring illegal aliens, it isn't the complete break-down of our boarder/national security and it isn't that this law is going to cost us trillions of dollars if enacted.

No, the biggest problem is that very few people trust our government to actually enforce the laws on our books and do what is right by the American people.
 

Do you actually believe that once Congress passes this or any other immigration bill that the government will actually start to enforce our laws against the hiring of illegal immigrants? Well I don't and I don't believe most Americans do either.

The problem of illegal immigration actually has a very simple solution. Start enforcing the penalties against the hiring of illegal immigrants and you will remove the major attraction that draws people to this country illegally - jobs. Without jobs and the prospect of a much better life the vast majority of people will stay home.

As stated in a previous email, my plan for dealing with this mess would proceed as follows:

1 - All people in the country illegally would have to register as a foreign guest-worker within 90 days in order to ever obtain citizenship or even achieve permanent status. There would be no exceptions to this policy. If you don't register within 90 days, you are in a separate class, face a much harder road to move forward towards legal working status and citizenship and probably will be deported.

2 - In addition to having to register, all illegal aliens would have to open bank accounts and obtain legal, taxable jobs if they hope to ever obtain citizenship or permanent status. Household employees would need their employers to start paying taxes on them, gardeners would have to start recording their income like real businessmen and everyone would get back on a level playing field. No legal, tax-paying job and you get to go back home.

3 - In order to obtain citizenship, a process that I envision taking at least 3 years and up to 10 years depending on how long the individual can prove they have been in the country the following qualifications will have to be met.



- Registration, as stated above, in the required amount of time and other requirements of the registration rules.

- Opening of a bank account, having a regular, on the books job and paying taxes.

- Absolutely no criminal record prior to or after registration, including not having such offenses as driving without a license, driving without insurance or drunk driving.

- At least an 8th grade grasp of the English language.

- Payment of a fee of an amount large enough to cover the costs of all the services required to become a citizen of the United States.

These rules are fairly simple. As President I would do one thing to ensure that this situation doesn't happen again, I would make sure our laws are enforced.

First, I would instruct all agencies under my jurisdiction to strictly enforce and apply the rules against hiring illegal immigrant workers.

Second, I would direct that all instances of hiring of illegal aliens be subject to penalty by jail time - real jail time, not a "country club" jail. It's real simple for an employer to pay a fine and move on - that's just a cost of doing business. It's not so simple to ignore the threat of real jail time in a real criminal jail. No one wants to face that prospect.

Third, there would be no Federally funded benefit programs available to illegal immigrants further removing incentives to come here illegally.

Fourth, I believe we need to change the Constitution so that only those born of American citizens become citizens of this country upon birth. The founders of our country could and would have never envisioned the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of babies being born each year in United States hospitals solely so their parents can use their anchor babies as an excuse to demand to stay here and take benefits from the rest of us.

It's really that simple. If the laws are enforced and there aren't any jobs for illegal aliens then there will be no reason for them to sneak across the boarder and come here. We have to not only deal with the problem at hand, but more importantly ensure that it does not happen again in another 10 years.

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

June 23rd, 2007 - The American Inquisition - Foreign Policy

The Spanish Inquisition came about because the Catholic Church grew too powerful and excesses followed from that power. I see a lot of parallels between the Spanish Inquisition and how the United States is acting in its foreign policy practices of today.

The United States is the 800 lb. gorilla in the world today. We have the strongest economy, strongest military and biggest attitude of pretty much everyone else on the face of the planet and, with this administration, we have gotten into the very bad habit of throwing our weight around as we see fit. If we can replace the current administration with one less determined to prove that the American (and Republican/Democratic Party) way is the only right way I believe our relationship with the rest of the world will improve considerably.

Afghanistan was and is a "good war" and that situation would probably have been over by now if we hadn't diverted our attention and resources by also getting involved in the "bad war" in Iraq.

The world is a much smaller and much more dangerous place than it used to be and no matter how big, strong and determined we may be as a country, we cannot afford to try and go it alone in dealing with the world's problems.

As President, one of my first goals would be to work towards repairing our standing with the rest of the world.

Al Qaeda is a world problem, not just a problem of the United States or of democracies. As a world problem, Al Qaeda needs to be dealt with by the world together, not the United States going it alone (most of the time).

Don't get me wrong, the United Nations is mainly a bureaucracy that is truly incapable of solving any real problems (look at Sudan, Rwanda, etc to see how ineffective they can be), but if we as a nation work to build a true coalition before moving then the results are always a lot better for us and the world as a whole. Remember how high our standing in the rest of the world was after the first gulf war. Where is our standing now with the world community? As was recently stated by columnist Tom Hennessy, "Instead of viewing the terrorists as an enemy to be defeated through military action, see them as part of an international criminal conspiracy to be dismantled and destroyed by international police action."

We do need a coalition police force. We do not need the US to be the world's policeman. For one thing, most other countries resent it and, second, we aren't very good at it. We are in places we shouldn't be and not in places we should be, so let's not be anywhere unless we are asked and there is a compelling reason for us to be there. If a dictator in Africa is allowing people to hack the arms off of each other, then maybe we have a moral obligation (not the right) to do something to stop it. Beyond that, we shouldn't be spending all of our money stationing our soldiers all over the world. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" was excellent advice. I propose that we stick to that advice by greatly reducing our presence overseas and focusing our attention on the defense and security of our own country.

Iraq:

The current debate concerning Iraq is very polarizing and seems to settle on two choices: stay or leave. However, once again from the same column by Tom Hennessy comes this advice, "The choice is not simply to stay or leave. There is a middle course: terminate the combat mission, offer advice, training, material support and economic assistance as long as there appears to be a viable Iraqi government, launch a diplomatic effort to keep the violence in Iraq from destabilizing the region. In the end, the Iraqis will decide their fate. We cannot do so."

The Direction of Our Foreign Policy under My Administration:

The above seems like very good advice for all of our foreign relations now and in the future. We didn't destroy Russia and communism, the Russians decided to give it up themselves. We didn't tear down the wall in Germany, the Germans did that. We didn't save Vietnam from Communism, but the Vietnamese have become one of the most dynamic "free" market economies in the Southeast Asia region. We may have played a part in helping them make those decisions, but the fact is that they had to do it themselves.

Everyone and every country have a different personality and that means they try to solve problems in a different way. Doesn't mean they are wrong, just different and, who knows, by working together we may find out someone else has a better solution to the problem.

A major tenant of our foreign policy, therefore, has to be somewhat similar to that of an advisor who says, "Well, that isn't how I'd approach it, but if you're going to do it at least let me give you some advice and support." Then be there to offer support and advice if needed. I think the US might be pleasantly surprised at how well the rest of the world does without us trying to tell them how to do everything our way. The rest of the world would probably appreciate it as well and we will get along with them a whole lot better as a result.

To see my interview on a French blog site please go to:
http://forum21.aceboard.fr/1130-6326-59360-0-Exclusive-interview-Frank-McENULTY-English.htm

Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

June 9th, 2007 - Energy Policy

Let's start with a couple of truths.

First, we can never totally eliminate artificial greenhouse gas emissions unless we develop totally new energy technologies. Second, the United States has absolutely no long-term comprehensive energy policy.
For that reason, I am proposing the following Energy Plan for the United States (and the world) in the following 3 steps.

Short Term - Conservation and Alternative Power
Five to Thirty Years - A Strong Nuclear Program
Long Term - We Need New Technologies

First - Immediate Efforts - Conservation and Alternative Power
Conservation is a good initial step to take to help reduce greenhouse gases and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources: driving a Prius, if practical, is great, turning off lights, lowering the thermostat, all those things are great; but in the grand scheme of things do very little to help us in the long run. As the population of the world keeps growing and becoming more "middle class", more people want the same things we already have and the demand for power and energy worldwide will continue to grow. Conservation slows the growth (slightly), but the growth of greenhouse gases worldwide will continue regardless of what we as a nation try and do. Every little bit helps, but in the mid-run it will not help enough and in the long-run it will be an absolute disaster.

Solar, wind and other environmentally "safe" technologies do exist and should be used as much as practical, but the current state of their technologies cannot produce enough energy to fully solve the long-term problems that we are facing as a nation and a world.

Second - Intermediate Effort - What we can do next
As stated in my previous document, nuclear power is strong in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. (http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)

In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes. (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm)

As President I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them and taxing the energy might solve California's budget deficit), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that could be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World.

If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil and coal to nuclear we would go a very long ways towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we mean to do what we can to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production. Such a step would also go a long ways towards lowering our dependence on foreign sources of oil and help bring stability to unstable portions of the globe. We could also use the nuclear power plants to help convert sea water to fresh water which addresses another threat looming just over the horizon - the shortage of potable water.

This, however, is an intermediate step and we can't as a country and a world just continue to sit on our hands and hope for the next step in energy production - we have to go out and make it happen.

Third - The Future - New Technologies
Everything I have talked about in this email so far concerns what we can do with old and existing technologies. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE CONSERVE, OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES WILL ONLY TAKE US SO FAR AND IT ISN'T FAR ENOUGH. WE NEED SOMETHING NEW.

As I have stated before, as President I would call on the country to immediately start a "Manhattan Project" for energy independence. We put a man on the moon back in the "dark ages" of technology and I firmly believe that we have the brain power to come up with solutions to the world's energy problems if only we apply ourselves and our resources to the task. We are quickly on our way towards spending $1,000,000,000,000 (that a trillion) of your tax dollars on the war in Iraq. If that money had instead been pointed towards new research and development into fuel cells, hydrogen power, solar power, fusion and other technologies, I believe we would already be well on our way towards major break-throughs in renewable and alternative energy solutions. The world and the United States will be much better off if we weren't all relying on a small region of the world for the lifeblood of our economies and we had a new technology to take us into the future.

That is my proposal for the long-term energy policy of the United States and, quite honestly, the world. Why don't we have a long-term energy policy in United States now? Because it doesn't make for interesting sound-bites and it requires politicians to be statesmen rather than politicians. Politicians aren't interested in something that may be a success after they leave office, but statesmen are because they understand that their job is to do what is best for the nation they lead, not for their political career.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

May 30th, 2007 - Environmentalists

By listening to Al Gore, other environmentalists and the media you start to get the impression that the United States is almost solely responsible for Global Warming through it's production of greenhouse gases. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We do, as a nation produce more greenhouse gas on a per capita basis than any other country, but that very fact can be directly attributed to the workings of those same environmentalists who for years have blocked every attempt to generate nuclear power - the only efficient way to generate power on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the world that does not create greenhouse gases.

Let me be clear, "Environmentalists" are the main reason we, as a country, produce so much greenhouse gas on a per capita basis. Because of their 30-year stance (and the lack of political will to go against that stance) against the development of nuclear power in this country we produce almost double the greenhouse gases that we would be producing with a strong nuclear generating capacity.

Approximately 50% of the greenhouse gases produced in the United States are the result of the production of electricity and it is probably just as high or higher in other parts of the world. Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases and global warming may not even be occurring at this time if the nuclear power industry had been allowed to develop in the United States and around the world as it has in places such as France and Lithuania.

Just think of the billions of tons of Greenhouse gases that would not have been produced if we, as a nation, would have continued to build nuclear power plants instead of the oil, coal and gas powered plants we and the world rely on now for our power. But the environmentalists wouldn't let us and our politicians, ever afraid of losing votes, went blindly along.

Nuclear power is much stronger in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. (http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)

In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy as proven by it's long history in France. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes (which can be safely dealt with). (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm)

As President, I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that would be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World.

If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil, coal and natural gas to nuclear we would go a very long way towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we will do what must be done to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production.

One of the biggest problems facing this country has been it's absolute lack of a comprehensive energy policy. One of the main purposes of a Government should be to plan for the future. Our Government and politicians refuse to do so because all they care about is the next election. The "future" will be the next guy's problem after we are out of office is what they seem to be thinking. We need a comprehensive energy policy in this country that makes good, long-term sense. Not one crafted by environmentalists, the media, big oil and other special interests that is designed solely to garner votes in the next election or contributions to their cause.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

May 12th, 2007 - Natural Disasters

The recent tornado in Kansas was a terrible thing. I haven't seen total devastation on that scale in America since I was living in Florida and Hurricane Andrew went through the southern part of the state. No one, no community can fully prepare for a disaster of that magnitude and it requires the help of local, state and Federal officials to help get things back to normal.

However, it has long been my belief that politicians secretly welcome natural disasters for the opportunity it gives them to pander to the electorate. While they may certainly care about the people affected by these tragic events, politicians also use them to be seen as caring and to throw our money around.

For years I've thought that there should be a more rational and organized response to natural and other disasters than the current system of knee-jerk politicians swooping in and doling out our money in an inefficient and wasteful way.

As President, I would propose a national disaster insurance fund be established to deal with these horrible situations. Although, as they say, the devil is in the details, a rough outline of how I believe the plan should work and be set up would be as follows:

There would be a specific set of disasters covered under the insurance. For example, the policies would cover losses from earthquake, flood, hurricanes and tornadoes.

Current owners of property would have 5 years to decide to get into the program. After the 5 year transition period was over, if you didn't have the insurance, there would no longer be any Federal assistance to individual property owners in the event of a natural disaster.

For buyers of new property, they could decide to buy the coverage anytime after buying their property. However, if they did not purchase coverage, they would have no right to Federal assistance in the event of a natural disaster.

The policies would be sold through existing insurance companies, much as earthquake coverage is currently sold in California.

No one would be forced to buy, but I would assume, much like fire insurance, that anyone who has a mortgage on their home or other property would be required to do so by their lender if they lived in a zone where there was the potential for any of these major disasters.

Prices would be kept reasonable by two key facts. First, there would be a large number of property owners involved in the pool which would spread the risk. Between those property owners in hurricane, earthquake, flood and tornado zones quite a bit of the country and a tremendous number of properties would be potential buyers. Second, the Federal government could subsidize the coverage - the subsidy coming from what is not given out each year in emergency disaster funding.
 

This program would accomplish several things.

First, it would make people responsible for doing what is necessary and proper to protect their property in the event of a catastrophic loss caused by a natural disaster.

Second, it would establish a true fund to pay for these events.

Third, it would allow people in certain parts of the country to know that they aren't underwriting the cost of the rebuilding the areas where these things always happen. Whether it is hurricanes in the Southeast, tornadoes in the Midwest or earthquakes in California, why should someone in Arizona or Idaho (where natural disasters are fairly few) be required to contribute their tax dollars to continually rebuilding beach front property or homes in "tornado alley"?

Finally, it would take away the ability of the politicians to use our money to further their own political gains - at least in this area of life.

One on the main planks of my Presidential Campaign platform is that of personal responsibility. If you have property, it is your responsibility to see that you have the proper insurance coverage to ensure that if something tragic happens you have the coverage to rebuild your house. I believe an insurance program of this kind is the government's "responsible thing to do".

Thank-you for continuing to pass on my emails and supporting my campaign. If you have any questions for me concerning where I stand on certain issues please send me an email. What I'd like to do is answer a number of questions in one of my weekly emails to give everyone a better flavor for where I stand on the issues that I haven't discussed with you already.

Please ask your friends and colleagues to sign up for my weekly emails through my website at www.frankforpresident.org . The more extensive my list becomes, the more I can get the media to pay attention to what I am trying to accomplish.

With your help, "Anything is Possible in America" and we will make a difference as we move towards the election 18 months from now.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

May 2nd, 2007 - Iraq

Since you can't turn on the news or open a newspaper without hearing about Iraq, I feel an obligation to give my thoughts on the subject in three parts.

How to avoid this situation in the future:
In my opinion the main reason we went into Iraq was because of faulty intelligence. I believe this faulty intelligence was greatly the result of the group think that occurs when one hires only those who are politically acceptable to the man in charge. In other words, the President hired a bunch of "yes men", let it be known what he thought and what he really wanted the outcome to be and they made it happen.

As we have seen way too many times in the past, intelligence information can be made to look one way or another if the people gathering the intelligence are inclined to do so. Given that almost all of the "proof" we were presented concerning Saddam's role in arming the terrorists and creating weapons of mass destruction has been proven false, the only conclusion that can be made at this time is that the analysts made the information fit the result the boss wanted to hear.

This will not be allowed to happen in my administration. I will only hire the best people for the job regardless of political affiliation. They will be allowed to do their job without political influence and alternative points of view will always be welcome.

How we got ourselves into this mess:
There are a lot of complicated theories on how we got ourselves in the current situation in Iraq that could take up dozens of pages and put everyone to sleep. However, I believe that the simple explanation is that we, as an American people, do not have the will and the attitude to properly deal with a situation such as Iraq at this time.

When one goes in and removes a dictator two things usually occur after the dictator is gone. First a tremendous power vacuum is created and, second, people who have been operating under repressive policies are suddenly set free from that repression. As we have seen, this creates tremendous problems. Unfortunately, when we chased Saddam out of power, everyone in the administration just assumed that everyone would like us and everything would just be great. They never gave the entire process any decent thought.

If you are going to remove a dictator, in order to keep chaos from ensuing you must replace the dictator first with another dictatorial form of government that will gradually move towards democratic rule. The last time we effectively removed dictators was in World War II and, while both Germany and Japan are now firmly Democratic in their form of governments, we initially started out ruling those countries in a fairly dictatorial and military way. That allowed those countries to slowly develop and grow into a Democracy while keeping a lid on the type of chaos we are now seeing in Iraq.

As Americans, we are not willing to be dictatorial at this time (no matter how good it might be for the people we are dictating to - sounds like being a parent, doesn't it), nor are we willing to accept and deal with the criticism from the rest of the world, so the simple fact is we shouldn't do it except under extreme circumstances where we are forced to take such an action.

What do we do now?
Well, we shouldn't have gone in and we shouldn't have done it the way we did, so what should we do now? I have a couple of serious problems with Congress' current stance on the situation.

First, not all of Iraq is a complete disaster. The oil fields are pumping oil without disruption. The northern, Kurdish part of Iraq appears to be working well. There appear to be a lot fewer problems in the southern part of the country so that only leaves the middle of the country as the complete disaster that we hear about every day. What happens to those people and parts of the country when we just cut and run? Is that fair? Is it right? No.

Second, how can we justify not finishing the job we started. A simple comparison would be that of a hiring someone to remodel your house, they come in tear the house apart, try to make it right and then just give up and walk away. How mad would you be? Do we need to make the people in the Middle East any madder at us than they already are at this time?

So we have to stay and finish the job. This means we have to get a lot tougher and dictatorial in our ways of dealing with the situation that has developed. We have to allow the marines and army to do their job without a lot of political interference, even if that means the draconian step of house-to-house searches of every house and in this zone. We have to greatly reduce the restrictions on our personnel that they are operating under because of the "rules of engagement". We have to stop worrying about what the rest of the world, the politicians and the general public thinks and do what it takes to get the job done and get Iraq back on the path towards some sort of normalcy.

Members of Congress are correct in calling this our "second Vietnam" because they are doing exactly what they did during the Vietnam War to make it an un-winnable situation.

Now I realize that this trying to sum up the entire Iraq situation in a couple of pages is very difficult and, quite honestly, I could go on for pages and pages, but the purpose of these emails is to give you a sample of how I would deal with problems as President in my own words. As my campaign progresses and I start to receive more questions from the media, I will expound in greater depth on my policies and positions. However, doing the right thing is usually a fairly simple process and if it requires an extremely long explanation then maybe there's just too much justification trying to go into a decision than is necessary.

On a lighter note, the first batch of "Anything is Possible in America" - Frank McEnulty for President, t-shirts are completed and available for contributions through the website. They are a nice quality t-shirt and I think you'll be happy with them. Please visit the website for a picture of the shirt and to make a donation. We'll contact you to get the size you'd like to have.

Some of you have already donated to the campaign and, for those who have, please send me an email at frank@frankforpresident.org letting me know what size t-shirt(s) you'd like to receive.

As always, please remember that "Anything is Possible in America" and send all your friends to website.
 

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

April 7th, 2007 - Where I Stand

Frank McEnulty stands behind his beliefs and challenges all other candidates for the Presidency to state where they stand so that the voting public can clearly see what the other candidates believe in.

I believe we pay enough in taxes and need to better manage our money and simplify the tax system.

I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and their own lives.

I believe that that we need comprehensive immigration reform based on strict enforcement of the immigration laws currently in place.

I believe the United States should not try to be the world’s savior, but has the moral obligation to "help" where and when it can do so at the request of the local people.

I believe in God, family and country and that they belong together.

I believe that the President of the United States should put America - not his or her political party - first. The President is an American before a Republican or Democrat.

I believe that our military should never be used for political purposes, political gain or to advance an agenda.

I believe that all people are created equal and that all people should be able to be equal in all things.

I believe in a strong separation between the branches of the Federal Government and in strong state’s rights.

I believe that judges should be judges and leave the passing and changing of laws to the politicians we have elected to do those jobs.

I believe that people are truly entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that no one is entitled to much beyond that unless they work to earn it themselves.

I believe that political correctness is a real threat to open and honest dialogue.

I believe “Anything is Possible in America” and if we all work together for the common good it will continue to be that way.

As I continue down my campaign path I will expand further on the above and other beliefs. It’s hard to actually believe based on the reporting in the news media, but the election is still over 18 months away and a lot can happen in that period of time. I am encouraged every day by the people I hear from that tell me I am on the right track and I strongly believe that if everyone continues to help me get the word out we can and will make a difference in the next election.

A lot of the political talking-heads claim that the final Presidential candidates may be people that aren’t even on the national consciousness just yet. With continued effort and your help, there’s a good chance they will be talking about my campaign in the next year on the major news outlets. 

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

April 1st, 2007 - Remember

There are a lot of topics everyday that I can comment about concerning my Presidential campaign. However, as I was working on this week's email I got the email shown below and it touched me deeply and I developed the very strong desire to pass it along as my email this week.

Unfortunately, our servicemen and servicewomen are dying in Iraq on a regular basis, but just because we may not agree with the war or the President they should not be forgotten, ignored or pushed aside. Thank God for small Texas towns which remind us what it is like to be an American and for reminding us of how we should all react to the funeral of one of our servicemen. 

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

They should all be like this...
In Texas we really do pull off the road and stop for funerals......nobody moves until the last car has gone by.

What follows is a message from Vicki Pierce about her nephew James' funeral (he was serving our country in Iraq):

"I'm back, it was certainly a quick trip, but I have to also say it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. There is a lot to be said for growing up in a small town in Texas The service itself was impressive with wonderful flowers and sprays, a portrait of James, his uniform and boots, his awards and ribbons. There was lots of military brass and an eloquent (though inappropriately longwinded) Baptist preacher. There were easily 1000 people at the service, filling the church sanctuary as well as the fellowship hall and spilling out into the parking lot.
 
However, the most incredible thing was what happened following the service on the way to the cemetery. We went to our cars and drove to the cemetery escorted by at least 10 police cars with lights flashing and some other emergency vehicles, with Texas Rangers handling traffic. Everyone on the road who was not in the procession, pulled over, got out of their cars, and stood silently and respectfully, some put their hands over their hearts.

When we turned off the highway suddenly there were teenage boys along both sides of the street about every 20! feet or so, all holding large American flags on long flag poles, and again with their hands on their hearts. We thought at first it was the Boy S couts or 4H club or something, but it continued ... for two and a half miles. Hundreds of young people, standing silently on the side of the road with flags. At one point we passed an elementary school, and all the children were outside, shoulder to shoulder holding flags . kindergartners, handicapped, teachers, staff, everyone. Some held signs of love and support. Then came teenage girls and younger boys, all holding flags. Then adults. Then families. All standing silently on the side of the road. No one spoke, not even the very young children.

The military presence...at least two generals, a fist full of colonels, and representatives from every branch of the service, plus the color guard who attended James, and some who served with him .. was very impressive and respectful, but the love and pride from this community who had lost one of their own was the most amazing thing I've ever been privileged to witness.
I've attached some pictures, some are blurry (we were moving), but you can get a small idea of what this was like. Thanks so much for all the prayers and support."
These photos are awesome !!

March 25th, 2007  - Tis' the Season- Tax Season

Since almost everyone is in the midst of preparing their taxes right now I thought my next topic should be the one almost everyone hates – taxes.

Recently, I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal (3/21/07 Page A18) which parallels my views on the subject almost exactly. This article was written by Jeb Hensarling, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 100 conservatives in the House of Representatives and is titled “Contract Renewed”.

The article states: The time has come for each member of Congress to show political courage. We must stop politicking and work to provide real solutions to the serious problems that our nation faces.. On March 21, 2007 Dick Armey, one of the authors of the original Contract with America, will be joined by taxpayers from across our country at the Capitol to endorse the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which was developed by the Republican Study Committee. These rights represent a renewed contract with all Americans to restore accountability to the halls of Congress. Here’s a glimpse:

1. Taxpayers have a right to have a Federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.

2. Taxpayers have the right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.

3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.

4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.


I think they are on the right track here, pretty much. Let’s look at those more closely.

1. Taxpayers have a right to have a Federal government
that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.
Our current debt is approximately $8.8 trillion dollars or over $29,000 for every man, woman and child in America. How did we ever allow it to get this big? This has to stop now. We are not in debt because we don’t pay enough in taxes, we are in debt because our politicians spend too much. It’s our money, not theirs.

If you or I or anyone gets too far into debt you have to cut back and only pay for the necessities until your finances are more in balance. That is exactly what needs to be done with the nation’s finances.

2. Taxpayers have the right to receive back each dollar
that they entrust to the government for their retirement.
I would take this one step further by saying that taxpayers have the right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement plus a reasonable rate of return. Most of the younger generation does not believe that social security will be around for them when it comes to their turn to retire. The system must be modified to ensure that it is or Social Security is just another tax.

3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government
to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.
Income taxes are just the tip of the iceberg. We are taxed for trash, water, gasoline, telephone, property, vehicles, you name it. If the politicians can find a way, they will slap a tax on it. At one time those taxes made “some” sense since they were established to support the items that were actually being taxed. However, as time went on, more and more taxes have found their way into the general fund instead of being used for the purpose for which they were intended.

So I have two suggestions:

First, if a tax is on a specific item, gasoline for instance, that tax money must be used for what it was intended to be used for – maintaining and building roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

Second, we must have a balanced budget amendment. That is the only way to ensure that Congress will propose budgets that are within our ability to pay for them out of our current income.

4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code
that they can understand.
The current tax code is ridiculously complicated. So much so that approximately 60% of taxpayers pay someone else to prepare their taxes and that should truly not be necessary. In order to get better and more complete compliance with paying taxes we need to make the whole system much simpler and easier to use. For that reason, I strongly believe in a flat tax system.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the above four proposals, it is interesting and amazing to me that a group composed of 100 House members have come forward with this “Contract” given the fact that they are probably a lot of the same people that are responsible for the 43% increase in the Federal budget over the last 5 years. It is, however, a step in the right direction.

I can and will guarantee that as President I will abide by the above policies and veto any bill (including budgets) that attempt to violate these principles. As I have stated before and will state again and again: my sole reason for this campaign is to do what is right for all Americans.

As always, please pass this email along to everyone you know and visit the website at www.frankforpresident.org. We are in the process of developing some press releases to get the campaign wider exposure and if you can contribute to help us in doing that please do.

Thanks,
Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

March 17th, 2007 - Personal Responsibility:

I’ve chosen to expand on my beliefs concerning personal responsibility because that is the topic on my website that has generated the most comment.

In the Thursday, March 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal there is an article titled: “Congress Primed to Act on Risky Home Loans”.  The basic tone of the article is that Congress is trying to figure out how to bail out all of those people in trouble because they took on a risky or too large home mortgage in the last few years.  This is a perfect example of politicians using our money to bail out people for their own (often greedy) mistakes.  Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Chairman said, “I’m determined to do everything we can to allow people to stay in their homes”. 

I’m sorry, but where is the personal responsibility in buying too large or too expensive a house, getting involved in a “bad” mortgage in order to qualify for the payments and then crying when things go bad.  It is not my fault, your fault or the government’s fault that someone bought a house they really couldn’t afford.  But Congress feels they have to do something because it isn’t their money and why should people be responsible for making mistakes.

For those of you who have visited my website at www.frankforpresident.org you will recall that I wrote the following brief statement about Personal Responsibility.

Personal responsibility is just that - personal. If you do something stupid and you get injured or hurt, then it is your own fault. It’s not McDonald’s fault if you get fat, it’s not Phillip Morris’ fault if you smoke and get lung cancer, it’s your fault. The second biggest problem facing America is that people want to find someone to blame for everything that happens to them. Well sometimes it's your own fault, sometimes it’s just bad luck and sometimes it is truly someone else’s fault, but let’s get away from this victimhood mentality and back to standing on our own two feet and taking responsibility for our own actions.

I would now like to expand on that statement to give you more of a feel for how I would lead the country as your next President.

John F. Kennedy, in his Inaugural speech on January 20, 1961 made the following, very famous statement, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.”  To me this is one of the greatest calls for personal responsibility made in America in the last 50 years.

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some

2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Based on how our politicians operate today I would say that we are getting closer and closer to fulfilling Mr. Tyler’s prophecy.

In today’s pandering to the electorate by politicians of all stripes, no one ever calls for people to think about what they can do, as an American citizen, to make the country a better place.  Rather, today’s politician wants everyone to look upon them as their own personal savior and make them totally beholden to them for whatever they think they can get from the government for “free”.  That’s how politicians buy the votes.  It’s gotten to the point where a lot of people believe they are entitled to having the government take care of them whenever they make a mistake or are just too lazy to do what is right and work hard.

As President, I believe that the individual has the ultimate responsibility for his or her own welfare.    Most of what happens to almost everyone in their lives is a direct result of what they do to themselves.   Having kids when you are a teenager will mess up your life.  Drinking too much or taking drugs, will mess up your life.  Dropping out of school will mess up your life.  Smoking and eating way too much will mess up your life. 

Unfortunately, our politicians try to make most of the above seem to be someone else’s fault.  The politically correct will tell you that if you tell someone they are doing things wrong you’re being unkind.  Who are you to judge them?  Who are you to tell people how they should live their lives?  Well, I think the American people have the right to judge people’s actions when they result in those very same people asking (demanding) that the government spend our tax money to support and help them because of their bad decisions.  If you mess up, you are not entitled to having the government bail you out.  You made the mess, you fix it.

As President, I would vow to never pass a law that takes responsibility for one’s bad actions away from the individual and makes it someone or something else’s fault.  The biggest problem in America today is the failure of individuals to take responsibility for their actions and the feeling of entitlement so many people seem to have today.  As an American you are entitled to act freely as a person desires.  However, no one should be allowed to go begging to their elected representative when their bad choices, bad decisions and just plain laziness catch up to them.

One of the major reasons I decided to start this Presidential campaign was that I felt a personal obligation to do something to try and make America a better place to live for my children and all future generations.   That will only happen if this slide towards victim-hood is reversed and people start to take more responsibility for their own actions and the results that occur.

My campaign will only succeed in making an impact if you help me to get the word out.  Please pass my emails along to everyone you know and if you can contribute, please do. 

Sincerely,

Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

March 11th, 2007 - Partisan Politics and My Administration  

There will be no partisan politics allowed in my administration because I have seen first hand how destructive they can be to getting the job done and helping people get back to their lives.

For the last two years I have been involved in developing a project in the New Orleans area. The project is now underway, but during that time I have had the opportunity to travel to New Orleans several times and have seen first hand what has and hasn’t been happening in the area since the hurricane in 2005 (over 18 months ago now). Not nearly enough is getting done. In Louisiana, they spent way too long blaming the Republicans in Washington, DC for everything that happened to New Orleans and surrounding areas rather than just getting on with the rebuild. Now, 18 months later, there are still whole neighborhoods where very little has been accomplished and I believe a great deal of the blame for that is because of the initial partisan finger-pointing that is still going on today. By contrast, in Mississippi, they didn’t try and blame Washington, DC for their problems (the Governor is Republican so no partisan bickering) and they got right to work and have made much greater strides towards getting the state and people’s lives back together. Now, it will be argued for years as to why this has occurred and while the complete answer is very complex and involves many aspects, I believe a major reason for the lack of progress in Louisiana can be blamed on the fall-out from partisan politics.

My Administration:
As an independent candidate for President my administration will not be burdened by the fact that we will need to make the proper political appointments or proper political decisions to try and help us keep and maintain power. My chances of reelection will depend solely on how the American people believe that I am doing as their President.

Every decision that I will make as President of the United States will be based on four very simple questions:

1. Is it Good for America? By this I mean good for America as a whole, not for a special interest group, not for a specific industry, not for a specific political party, not for a specific politician’s reelection, but good for America as a whole.

2. Is this Federal law really necessary? We have thousands and thousands of Federal laws and way too many people in Congress trying to pass new ones all the time to help themselves get reelected. Unless a law is absolutely necessary for the American people as a whole, it should not be passed.

3. Is this a proper use of the citizen’s tax money? The Republican administration that we have had in this country for the last several years has been on a spending spree unlike that seen in many, many years. What happened to the theory of fiscal responsibility and smaller government? We need to stop throwing money at every special project that people in Washington can dream up to buy votes and stop now.

I will not be afraid to veto new laws if I do not believe that they are in the best interest of all Americans. As an independent President, I will not be under any obligation to pass a law to help a political party or to help get a certain senator or congressman reelected. I will have the freedom to do what is right for America rather than what is right for a special interest or political party.

Administration Personnel:
As an Independent candidate for President my administration will be free to hire the right people for the job, regardless of political affiliation. There will be Democrats in my administration; there will be Republicans in my administration; there will Independents, Greens and non-aligned people in my administration. The key to someone obtaining a job in my administration will be simple; do they want what is best for America , can they leave partisan politics at the door and do they have the proper credentials for getting the job done?

If a person does not have the right qualifications for a job, they will not be hired regardless of what they did to help me win the election. I will hire as someone in the private sector will hire – hire the best person for the job who will give us, the American people, the best return on our investment.

Next Week’s Topic – Personal Responsibility

As always, please forward to everyone you know, visit the website and if you can contribute please do. I am currently looking for people who can coordinate campaign efforts in each of the 50 states and all major cities.

Always remember that “Anything is Possible in America”  

Sincerely,

Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org

P.S. T-shirts and bumper stickers are in the works and should be available in about 2 weeks.

February 28th, 2007: Oil and Infrastructure

In this week's email, this is what I'd do about:
* Our dependence on foreign oil
* Our crumbling infrastructure

The biggest job of the President is to be the leader of the United
States of America and work to get what he believes are the right
programs moving forward for the country as a whole. Congress can pass
the laws and the American people can bring pressure do what is right,
but the President needs to have a vision for the country and its
future.

My programs will be designed to strengthen the country for the long-run
and get us back to being the world leader we once were. My programs
are not designed with the next election in mind or in keeping a
specific party in power, but rather for the greater good of all
Americans. Here are two ideas:

First, the biggest problem facing us now and for generations to come is our dependence on foreign sources of oil and oil in general.
We need to immediately start a "Manhattan Project" for energy
independence. We put a man on the moon back in the "dark ages" of
technology and I firmly believe that we have the brain power to come up
with solutions to the world's energy problems if only we apply ourselves
and our resources to the task. We are quickly on our way towards
spending $750,000,000,000 (that billions) of your tax dollars on the
war in Iraq. If that money had instead been pointed towards new
research and development into fuel cells, hydrogen, solar, wind and
other technologies, I believe we would already be well on our way to
major break-throughs in renewable and alternative energy solutions.
The world and the United States would be much better off if we weren't
all relying on a small region of the world for the lifeblood of our
economies.

I believe it was the Shah of Iran who once said that oil is far too
valuable to be used as a fuel and in many ways he was extremely correct
given the thousands of products that we are able to derive from oil.
Besides being an extremely useful fuel source, oil is an extremely
important component in thousands of products we use and rely on
everyday. Wouldn't it be better if oil was preserved for those uses
and we were able to find our energy elsewhere?

The only way to bring the price of oil down is to make it less valuable
and the only way to do that is to develop alternative energy sources
that can replace oil in everyday life. Not only would this be good for
the country and for the future, but it would also go a long ways to
reducing Greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, our infrastructure is falling apart and needs to be fixed.
We, as a country, are losing billions of dollars every year in lost
time, damaged vehicles and wasted fuel. We have a Federal gas tax that
is supposed to go towards our infrastructure, but that has been wasted
and mismanaged until we find ourselves in the position we are in today.
For that reason, I would propose an additional ten cents a gallon
gasoline tax that would be specifically and totally earmarked only for
highway improvement projects. It could not be "stolen" for the general
fund, it could not be borrowed for other items, it could only be used
for roads and bridges. The highways, freeways and bridges in our major
cities and in many other parts of the country are in danger of collapse
from poor maintenance and lack of capacity and we, as a country, need
to do something about it both for now and the future.

That's it for this week. There will be another email next week in which
I will describe how my administration will be different from that of a
major party President.

Please pass this along, visit our website at www.frankforpresident.org
and, if you can, contribute to the cause. Any amount is welcome and
will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty
Presidential Candidate
 

February 2, 2007: Yes, I'm serious

Since sending out the first email concerning my Campaign for President of the United States I have been asked a lot of questions and would like to answer those questions at this time.  As always, please forward this on to everyone you know.

1.  Are you serious?  
Very serious.  A lot of time and effort has gone into getting this campaign started and I intend to see it through to the end - whatever that might be.

2.  Can you really do this?
YES - One of the reasons why this is such a great country is that anyone who meets some very basic qualifications can file to run for President.  My candidacy is registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), my campaign committee - Frank McEnulty for President National Committee - is registered with the FEC and our committee is also registered with the IRS as a 527 political organization.

3.  Why are you doing this? 
Over the last several years I have become increasingly disturbed by what I see as the damage being done to the country by the partisanship of the two major political parties.  Both of these parties appear to be capable of and willing to do anything to stay in or get power regardless of how damaging in may be to the country in the long run.  I believe it is my duty as an American to stand up and make a fuss about how I believe the two major political parties are trying to destroy the country for their own gains.

It is also my firm belief that there are millions of people that feel pretty much the same way I do, but don't know what to do about it.  Together, however, the millions of us can accomplish something a make a change in how things are being done.  A change for the better.

4.  How can you hope to accomplish anything?
By myself, I can't accomplish much.  Let's face it, unless I can get a lot of people to support me and start to gather some momentum, the mainstream press and pretty much everyone else will just ignore me as if I never existed.  However, with your help and the help of your friends and their friends we can make a difference.  As I stated above, I believe there are millions of people out there that think that the current political situation is bad for the country and that a change needs to be made.  When enough of us get together to make our voices heard - changes will be made.

5.  Come on, you really don't believe that you can make a difference do you? 
Yes, I do and let me give you an example of why I believe that to be true.  A few years ago here in California, the people of the state got upset enough to actually recall the Governor.  Most politicos didn't believe it would happen.  How could anyone expect to recall a Democratic Governor in the State of California.  Well, we proved them wrong because enough people got together and made a difference.  Exactly what I am trying to do here.

6.  What can I do now? 
My campaign needs three things to continue to move forward. 

First, I need everyone to send this and my previous email to everyone they know.  Not just a select few, but everyone.  I've been extremely surprised by the people who have told me they agree with what I am saying and with what I am attempting to do and you will be to. 

Second, I need everyone who gets this email not directly from me to send an email to frank@frankforpresident.org so I can gather your email addresses.  I promise I will never send more than two emails a week and usually it will be only one.  Also, I promise that I will only use my campaign email list for keeping you informed of my campaign activities.

Third, the campaign does need funds to grow, operate and spread the word.  $100, $50, $20 is all greatly appreciated and will go directly to getting the word out and helping the campaign continue forward.  For those that have already contributed I thank-you greatly and appreciate your belief in my campaign and what we are trying to accomplish.

My campaign slogan says it all - "Anything is Possible in America" - I believe that and I believe that together we can make a difference and get this country back on the path that has made and kept it the great place it is.

Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty
Presidential Candidate

January 25th, 2007: Frank McEnulty for President

My name is Frank McEnulty and I am running as an independent candidate for President of the United States in 2008.  Crazy right?  Well maybe, but I am just way too fed up with how the two major parties are running (or should I say ruining) politics in this country and I feel the need to try and do something about it.

Please visit my website at www.frankforpresident.org

I've noticed over the past several years that most of the political ads are pushing a party, rather than ideas or an individual.  "Vote for me, I'm a Republican" or "Vote for me, I'm a Democrat" is all one seems to hear any more.   What do these people stand for?  Nothing until the party tells them to or else they get cut off from the fountain of money. 

Do these candidates have independent thoughts?  Maybe, but they never voice them in public because it might not be in line with party doctrine. 

Do they ever vote for a bill, law or policy because it is the right thing to do for the country?  Only if the party tells them it is okay to do so.

Usually, if a Republican introduces a piece of legislation it must be wrong per the Democrats because the Democrats didn't come up with it.

Usually, if a Democrat introduces a piece of legislation it must be wrong per the Republicans because the Republicans didn't come up with it.

What's wrong with just working together to do what is right for the country regardless of what party you are affiliated with?

If you're as disillusioned with how the political process seems to be working as I am let's get together and make them see how upset we are.  None of us can do it by ourselves, but if enough of us band together we can and will make them sit up and take notice.

Please visit my website and pass this email along to all your family members and friends, co-workers and everyone else you know. 

Together we will make a difference because:

"ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IN AMERICA"

Sincerely,

Frank McEnulty

Presidential Candidate