Thursday, 04 October 2018 15:44

Jeff Scott: Silence is War

Written by
Rate this item
(2 votes)

American voters are sleepwalking again.

From the beginning of my campaign in February, I stated clearly in every public appearance that I am the "Peace candidate."

I support reductions in military spending and foreign arms sales. Yet, the defense budget just passed is a whopping $675 billion, 10 times that of Russia. American bombs, purchased by the Saudis, are falling on Yemeni civilians. A few members of Congress have finally woken up to the fact that Americans are partners in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, but most of our elected representatives, and candidates, are still sleepwalking.


I want to limit regime change. We continue to fund Islamic radicals to topple the Assad regime in Syria. Fabricated stories about the potential use of chemical weapons sound even less credible than the myth of Saddam’s WMDs.

I support limits on NATO expansion. Yet NATO, a cold war relic, continues to expand, and our taxpayers fund the weapons that we insert near Russia’s border in Poland, Romania, and Ukraine.

I support steps to prevent war with Russia. The sanctions started in 2012 were built on a fabrication to demonize Putin and pave the way for regime change. Now, our own interior secretary has floated the idea of naval blockade against Russia. A naval blockade is an act of war. The U.S. ambassador to NATO stated that we will, unprovoked, take out Russian missile positions, also an act of war.

Since we’ve removed most Russian diplomats from the U.S., choking lines of communications, we are at risk of miscalculation with a nuclear power. The signals are there for all to see, and the stakes have never been higher.

We’re also openly pushing for war with Iran. Yet, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. Saudi Arabia, our alleged ally, is Iran’s petro-rival in the Middle East, and it openly funds terrorists to topple the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Is it too much to ask that these issues get debated by candidates for Congress?

As a voter, and a taxpayer, do you care where our bombs fall and why they are dropped?

Do you trust President Trump to make good decisions?

Or would you prefer to sleepwalk into more hostilities with Syria, then Iran, and then Russia?

And are you aware that Democrats have fueled these policies every step of the way?

I want to debate these topics in Congress. If I lose the election, I want our Congressman to have the ability to think clearly on these issues.

Last Thursday (Sept. 27) at the Black Political Caucus, Democratic candidate Dan McCready would not appear with me on stage. He had the chance. He was there. Then he left claiming he had a conflict. His campaign manager acted as a stand in to inform the audience how nice a person Dan is and how concerned he is about all the issues important to voters.

Why would someone who has put his life on the line and seen what a failure our war policy is firsthand not want to talk about whether other young men and women should do the same?

That doesn’t work for me. That shouldn’t work for any voter.

Our campaign has reached out many times and he simply won't agree to debate in an open forum.

McCready’s campaign is spending up to $2 million, much of it on media. For his donors’ sake he must avoid any situation where he could face a prepared adversary and be embarrassed.

Under normal circumstances, if he were an incumbent, he would have a record of votes to defend. But he’s not an incumbent, nor has he held office before. No one knows how he deliberates or thinks about policy issues.

He hasn't published his thoughts in any accessible medium.

His answers to questions on the various voter information sites are extremely weak, probably written by paid campaign staff to say as little as necessary.

Not only that, but he was an Unaffiliated voter until last year. He is on record as donating to Republican candidates in the past.

Dan is a new candidate and has never run a general election. He is 36 years old, with a razor-thin understanding of the issues.

My question to traditionally Democratic voters is, can you tell me what you think would be a good vetting process for a person that you expect to represent you in the World’s Greatest Deliberative body?

I'm listening.

Jeff Scott is the Libertarian candidate for U.S. House District 9.

 

Editor’s note:  The Richmond Observer strives to provide fair and objective coverage of any and all political issues, situations, and/or developments, regardless of party affiliation.  As part of this commitment, the Observer is offering this press release for your review.  It is also our policy to print news release material in its original format, as it was  received, with minimal, if any, editorial adjustments.

 

Last modified on Thursday, 04 October 2018 16:06