Hi I'm Todd Watson, an Independent candidate running for United States Senate.

Our party platform has three key philosophies compared to a traditional campaign agenda. First, we believe that the party system in Washington is broken. Second, we believe in a foundational return to the spiritual heritage of our country. Third, we believe it is time government act selfless and not selfish with the future of this country.

We have great passion to be part of a larger movement under God of real change in this country. Enjoy the site and let’s MOVE! Learn why all individuals who interviewed Todd of the York County GOP leadership committee endorsed Todd Watson for US Senate.

This site is designed to give you the information you need quickly while yet thorough enough to move the dialogue of the debate to “How” from “What”. “Todd’s Stances” has quick positional stances (read the bold if you have no time). Second, we have three Philosophies with quick excerpts to learn more about our beliefs. Finally, we thoroughly blog on any given topic to give those passionate about a subject details they can depend on. The details in these blogs gives you a roadmap to solving problems and details on specific views. You will rarely find disclosure of this level of detail as well as belief structures. Campaigns want to be general to appeal to the most voters. We fundamentally believe in giving specific guidance to move the debate forward and show we are serious about solving problems–not being popular.

Thanks for your support!

The Watson Campaign Team

Senator Fischer and Sasse Approve Purchase of 8 Fighter Jets for Pakistan

Would you the American taxpayer buy ‘8’ F-16’s for Pakistan? Senator Sasse and Fischer thought it was a good idea for you to buy Pakistan EIGHT jets. They defeated Senator Paul’s (R-KY) resolution to stop the purchase (I have attached his speech below ‪#‎standwithrand‬)

Pakistan is the government that armed, aided, and abetted the Taliban that has been killing our soldiers. Furthermore, Pakistan, an Islamic country, sheltered Osama Bin Laden one mile away from Pakistan’s military training base for over decade to help Osama avoid capture!!!!

It gets more concerning….

General John F Campbell (Stationed in Afghanistan) testified to Congress that Pakistan’s Haqqani Terrorist Network (mixed into the power of the Pakistan Government) is considered the most capable threat to US forces in Afghanistan. Senator Bob Corker also expressed hesitation on the funds to Secretary of State Kerry for Pakistan due to their “Insufficiency in targeting militant groups hostile to the United States.”

These are legitimate concerns! Yet, the purchase was pushed through and our Senators were part of the vote.

What is this vote really?

Answer: Another chapter in interventionist foreign policy.
Answer: Another episode of making the sale for the large military complex donors of their campaigns.

For the sake of argument, let’s say this purchase is a good idea for National Security…Pakistan already has 70 F-16’s! Why do we need to pay for an additional 8 F-16’s out of our Treasury that has no money???

We are $19 trillion in the hole and we send new money we borrow from the Chinese to a group of people who ACTIVELY PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS TO DEATH!

To make it worse, our actions are severely upsetting the second largest populated country in the world–India. India or Pakistan? Hmmmm.

This follows up the Obama’s Syrian decision I was on the record against and the Republicans (including Fischer) were on the record to support. Syrian policy gave arms to our enemies and recruited less than 100 people to fight for us (that withered down to less than 10). What really happened is the arms we purchased ended up in the hands of the enemy (we repeat this mistake in history over and over). You can read the full Syrian blog on watsonforsenate.com on October 16, 2015 to get the full spectacle of horrendous decision making over Syria by Obama and the approving Republicans.


Most conservatives agree Obama’s foreign policy is bad. However, they continue to support it! I have not!

I’m not sure my fellow Nebraskans know what is going on at the donor level. They are still blinded by speeches. This is another bad decision with heavy donor interest at stake for the GOP (Defense Contractors). At best, this is a poor fiscal decision with beneficial national security implications if we trust the Pakistanis now. At worst, this is a horrendous diplomatic, fiscal, and national security decision that could come back and hurt our allies and worse yet our soldiers. I find it hard to view this as a positive decision—especially considering Pakistan’s recent past.

Keep your eyes open Nebraska. It is all happening right in front of you (especially the secret society establishment meeting last week by Sasse I wrote about in my last blog). The Presidential talk can distract you to shady deals going on. Stay focused to active legislation!

Posted in Crony Capitalism, National Defense, Sasse, Veteran Issues | By

The 2 Factions of Conservatives

The American Conservative Article

Spot on article from the American Conservative


“Were this Britain or France, the GOP would have long ago split between its open-borders, globalist, war party wing, and its populist, patriotic, social conservative wing.

The latter would be demanding a timeout on immigration, secure borders, no amnesty, no more needless wars, and a trade policy dictated by what was best for America, not Davos or Dubai.”


In a nutshell…this is why I left the GOP. They push the populists to the side. Those of us who want to secure the border, avoid endless war (FUTURE entanglements), and create trade policies in the interest of America are not allowed.

The donor interests who simultaneously own the media will push open-borders, globalization, and war (most ties back to money).

The patriotic, social conservative, populists, and liberty leaning candidates like me are not allowed an equal microphone at the table within the party.

I’m all in with Carson and Trump for my finalists in the GOP (PS–I like some third party candidates as well). I wish Trump had stronger social convictions and I wish Carson was not so duped into non constitutional crony trade treaties (most medical people struggle with economics). This is why I can’t pick a winner yet and need to hear more debate.

They are the last chances we have to keep those controlled by the money out. I’m OK with Cruz. Cruz is probably the most balanced on social and economic issues. However, he appears to have sold out with his attempted hiding of money from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and inviting K-Street candidates to campaign for him. I don’t know if he has the real courage to overcome the donor class.

Rubio supported amnesty before border security (just a fact that he has changed–just like his religion–FOUR flips!). The US Chamber supports open-borders. Now, we have a rising Nebraska conservative candidate that can’t get a border bill to the desk (despite being in the inner circle of Homeland Security), is endorsed by the chamber (fighting hard for open border), and campaigns for Rubio.

On pro-life we have ringing endorsements from Wells Fargo (have you moved your money yet?), Bank of America, and Fannie Mae. These entites continue to support our conservative candidates AND actively fund Planned Parenthood.

Somehow Republican Nebraska can’t figure out why 100 day pledges on key Pro-Life bills go unfilled, a border bill cannot be put on the desk by the Republican majority, and the general welfare of the American people continues to slip. However, they can figure out how to share the latest and greatest speech and continue to preach accountability wihout really demanding any from their own. To put the cherry on top, many Nebraskans think our candidates giving the President fast track authority are out to defend the Constitution. This isn’t even a stretch to understand giving ANY executive authority at the request of this President is likely to be UNconstitutional. Don’t be a Democrat. However, don’t be Republican either if you really believe in the Constitution.

As we move into 2016, the media is slaming Rubio/Hillary down our throats and demonizing their opponents in an attempt to sway the average voter who needs to identify with popular acceptance in their environment. They need to find the courage to stand alone and join a smaller (but quickly growing) movement to stand for principles. Both larger movements are controlled by the money.

As far as Rubio goes, Santorum (who endorsed Rubio) and Jeb who pledged Rubio to be VP can’t name ONE accomplishment of Rubio in the Senate. I would argue the same can be said about our establishment candidates at home. Yet people are falling in love with the speeches and ignoring the same donors behind the scenes that have run the show for years for both sides. The majority of Americans would demand God let Aaron, not Moses, lead them through the desert because he could talk better.

Times need to change before we start making rookie federal officials American stars. What happened to the ball player that had to be a 30/30 or 40/40 guy before they were awarded the MVP?

Maybe you will start to understand the identity of the party and realize the social conservative, closed border, populist has no room in the GOP at the microphone.

We can be brothers and sisters when the GOP joins us on the second amendment, seeks to secure this nation, defends religious liberty, and pushes for less regulation. However, we need to defend the Constitution and promote the general welfare of We the People first. These are the principles forgotten by both main stream establishment parties.

Have a good weekend … read my thoughts on King David/Moses and Corporate Hog Farming to be posted later this weekend.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Military, National Defense, Populism | By

Senator Fischer…Troubling (In)Action on National Security

Does it bother you when elected officials play the ‘blame game’ but are participatory in the cause of the problem?  Does it bother you when Senators are silent when platform issues are being debated on the floor of the US Senate?  It bothers me.

In recent weeks, Senator Fischer’s criticisms of POTUS (President of the United States) have grown in frequency and intensity.  It is time to set the record straight and hold Nebraska’s elected officials accountable for their role in foreign policy failure.

Senator Fischer continues to badger Obama on his failed Syrian rebel strategy.  I will avoid the severity of personal attacks she employs.  I will keep my criticism to the facts of foreign policy failure and silence.

Senator Fischer is responsible for poor decisions on national security.  She APPROVED the failed Syrian Rebel strategy she is currently mocking.  She is not alone.  Every Republican in Nebraska authorized Obama’s Syrian strategy except one.  Former Representative Terry and I were the only conservatives to go on the record and say “No” to Obama’s Syrian strategy.

To make it worse, Senator Fischer and other Republicans are passive in taking legislative action to stop the Iranian treaty after MATERIAL “Side Deals” have emerged and remain undisclosed by the President.  This is not the courage we sorely need in 2015.

Furthermore, “Self-Imposed Moratoriums of Silence” on the floor of the US Senate in the face of evil is self-evident.

King, Lincoln, Kennedy, Netanyahu, and my personal favorite Bonhoeffer warned us against silence we are now witnessing.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer — ‘Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.’

Let’s examine the votes and multiple instances of silence-

The Factual Record on Syria

During the 2014 US Senate debates, the three debating Senate candidates (Domina, Jenkins, and I) answered fair, honest, and tough questions.

There were two questions we were consistently asked in September 2014.

Do you support the President’s air strikes?

Do you support arming the Syrian rebels?

All three debating candidates supported the air strikes. However, candidate Domina and I were the only candidates who went on the record and objected to arming the Syrian rebels.

Speaking for myself, I objected because my contextual historical knowledge understood that arming third party rebels was a dangerous and ineffective strategy.

Senator Sasse did not debate the question.  Silence.

Senator Fischer voted “Yes” to Obama’s Syrian strategy to arm, fund, and train Syrian rebels to fight this growing conflict.

Unfortunately, the popular and winning ‘Yes’ position would turn tragic for America and the Syrian people.  We must learn from and correct the lessons of history if we are going to move America forward.

OWH – Story on Unilateral Approval of Arming Syrian Rebels (Except Lee Terry)

The “Great Debate” in Hastings. Minutes 44 thru 52 Highlight the Syrian Rebel Position

What Has Been the Result of a “Yes” Vote For Syrian Rebel Support?

  • Many Syrians have been slaughtered or have fled their homeland
  • There are now an estimated 9 million displaced Syrian refugees
  • The number of refugees is at a crisis level across Europe and the Middle East
  • Washington must now address immigration/refugee status on displaced Syrians
  • ISIS has maintained their funding by continued control of oil wells
  • The Russian aggression into Syria is filling a vacuum of leadership
  • Putin is now the lead “Alpha Dog” in Syria

Senator Fischer would like you to believe this is entirely Obama’s fault.  However, the record is very clear.  Senator Fischer authorized and blessed this disastrous Presidential strategy on the floor of the US Senate to deal with the problems in Syria.  The authorization and choice of an inadequate strategy has lead to an epic crisis America must confront.

This is a massive failure in discernment and strategy by our current delegation. Obama’s perpetual failure of plans in the Middle East should have brought skepticism into authorizing an additional “Obama” strategy. Even Dave Domina, the most liberal candidate from Nebraska, knew this was a bad strategy from the President. Although I seldom agreed with Domina during the debates, you can see my visual affirmation of his position in Hastings at the time of our initial disclosures.  This was an important decision of magnitude.  Unity for National Security was displayed.

My “NO” to the Syrian rebel decision is a very different on the record position between me and other conservatives like Senator Fischer.

Senator Sasse did not debate or take a position.  His silence was a foreshadowing of his conduct his first year.  Key issues to his platform (abortion, border security, Obamacare) went unaddressed as well with a “self-imposed moratorium” of silence. Monumental debates on the floor of the US Senate came and went without a peep.  Pledges of 100 day legislation went idle.  Nebraska observed this conduct of silence first hand and overwhelming approved of this behavior in their vote.

Senator Sasse and Silence – LJS 10/07/2015

Culpability belongs to the media who filled the silence with endless stories of adoration.  They “swoon” to those receiving national media coverage.   Journalistic action for policy disclosure should have been the aim.  To make it worse, the media proactively silenced the bold and vocal voice put on the ballot by the Nebraska people because I continually mentioned a profane 3 letter word in the media “G-O-D.”  The mere fact spiritual people can have intelligent opinions on civil issues is still a concept that is hard to comprehend in the secular media driven world.

Moving on, Senator Fischer stated the consensus opinion after the vote. “Doing nothing in the face of a growing threat is simply not an option. It’s important for Congress and the president to show the world that the United States will stand up and lead.”

‘Leading’ is the last word to describe American action in Syria.  America’s ‘shoot from the hip’ conflict strategy authorized by the US Senate was a horrendous approach.

The wisdom and consequences of that first monumental decision to have LARGE and immediate ramifications are now on the record for America and Nebraska to examine.   The astronomical consequences of these actions are visible throughout the world.   

America currently supports 4 to 5 armed rebels!  What a strategy!  How about the Huskers play defense with 4 players? How about the Huskers give Pierson-El to the Gophers to play against us this weekend?

Senator Fischer’s Formal Statement on Arming Rebels

This specific recruitment of rebels only garnered 60 recruits.  Of the 60 recruits garnered by this strategy, only 4 or 5 rebels remain as expressed by our military leaders.  5 Syrian rebels…ISIS must be trembling!  Is this the “Peace through Strength” strategy authorized by Republicans?  Let the “5 Rebel Strength Fact” (or 60 if you want to give full credit) sink in to understand how poor of a strategy this was.

Unfortunately, the situation has grown worse.  Ben Swann and other respected journalists cite that our equipment, training, etc. from this authorization is now being utilized by ISIS against our interests.  This was my ultimate fear of what would happen!

Lives are now dying over this decision.

If Democrats could spell responsibility they would turn on Obama.  If Republicans really acted with accountability, they would hold Senator Fischer and every other Republican responsible for their authorization of a horrendous Syrian rebel strategy.

Instead, we will be stuck with two failing parties whose strategy is to point at each other and assign failure for the Middle East to gain a “Default” vote for their party.  Problem solvers remain missing.

Senator Fischer’s Statement on “4 to 5” Rebels

The Truth of the Middle East – 2 Videos to Educate the Average Voter


The above link is the best narrative from a REAL journalist on what is going on in the Middle East.  (Warning: It is not what the media normally spins).

The link below is probably the best “Top Level View” of what is currently going on in Syria.  Most Americans are confused (understandable) with all the different groups, names, and allies in the region.  I think this piece will help you better understand the situation and different parties at play.

Furthermore, most of the American people are conditioned to think about wars within the context of nations.  America must relearn sectarian vocabulary. Understanding the Shia and Suni difference is more relevant to understanding Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and IS.

The video below was created by “VOX”. Despite many of VOX’s beliefs, I still believe it narrates the basic story accurately for the average viewer.

I hope these two stories help clarify the situation for those that are confused.

The Modern Day Story of Syria (Read Daniel for one of the Ancient Stories)

What Americans Need to Learn.  My Proactive Recommendations to Our Problems.

1.  America started the problems in the Middle East by drifting from our defined Constitution.  Stop drifting!

America has lost focus of DOMESTIC Tranquility and Providing the Common DEFENSE.  America should have stayed out of Iraq.  Our Constitution was designed to save our blood, money, and toil for the betterment of Americans.  America needs to practice self-control.  America needs to ignore the wishes of large military complex donors that profit from engagements.  The American people should focus on Providing the Common Defense and Not Providing the Common Offense.

Observe the Constitution!

2.  America’s problem is compounded by our foreign policy being dictated by ‘Big Oil’.   Foreign oil resources need to be formally removed as a ‘national interest’ motive in foreign policy.  There is a reason the media will broadcast endless propaganda on Iraq and downplay massive genocide in Rwanda.  We need to ignore oil interests who benefit from overseas wells.  We need 100% North American sourced oil and remove ourselves from blood money that is stained in Mid-East oil.   We need to ignore Republican donors’ large interests in Mid-East oil.  We need to overcome Democratic attempts to stop domestic production.  Let’s start drilling and stop importing!

3.  The Military Complex profits from “Double Sales” with the confiscation of our weapons by third party fighting forces.  The follow up sale is reselling more goods to our government to defeat third party forces armed with our weapons.  This “Double Sale” cycle is a habitual pattern for the US government.  We give weapons to Bin Laden, Saddam, Contras, and the list goes on through covert government action.  This policy often requires us to fund larger military machines to destroy opponents who possess arms WE SUPPLIED!  We must recognize the military complex (donors) create conflict of interest in our elected members decision making process.  We need our representatives to think Constitutional defense before donor base!

Furthermore, a costly mega war is brewing.  This potential war will be more costly in needs because our government has now enabled a well funded Iran through horrendous diplomatic action.  I’m convinced Iran will be using the $100 billion+ of additional inflows for research and the purchase of strategic weapons.

Ask yourself, would America need a larger or smaller defense budget if ISIS didn’t have the equipment/training America provided the Rebels through the Syrian authorization?  Would we need a larger military force if American diplomatic action did not free $100 billion+ to flow to the Iranian government?  We need to stop allowing our enemies access to large scale resources to purchase weapons! Senator Fischer needs a larger defense budget because she is enacting or failing to act diplomatically in foreign policy.  More on this later…

4.  Our legislative branch has to debate what wars we engage in.  We have a soft legislative branch that defers to the President to dictate military engagements.   The Constitution authorizes our legislative branch to declare a war.  1941 was the last time Congress had the guts to own a declaration.  We have lacked Congressional leadership with regards to military engagements for over 70 years.  We need to demand Congress authorize our engagements….not the President!

Furthermore, the power of the purse (the true power of Congress) can dictate the size and scope of how our President will fight.  Instead, we have numerous puppies in Congress led by horrendous leaders laying down their Constitutionally assigned roles.  They habitually defer to the President on issues the Constitution says are germane to the legislative branch.  Both parties have deferred to Republican and Democrat Presidents on engagement/war declarations.  They have been followers and not leaders.  We need our elected legislative leaders to follow the Constitution.

5.  I cited a different mindset that needs to be incorporated in my blog on September 7, 2015 featuring an insightful TED talk on the mentality of insurgents. Check it out. We are going to have to work together with different mindsets and skills to improve the situation in the Middle East. Defeating the enemy is not enough.  Filling the vacuum must be solved to bring a stronger sense of stability in the Middle East.

6. Look for leaders not afraid to debate.  Lindsey Graham (not my candidate for the record) is the only leader to offer a specific war strategy with specific details in the GOP Presidential debates.

Most of the other candidates are ducking the details of their war strategy.   One of the most important questions in a Presidential debate is how they would organize and win a war.  If you are unable to show leadership in debate on this topic….you will not show decisive leadership as Commander In Chief.

We need leaders.  Inept leadership is exactly what we are witnessing when a Presidential candidate has no strategy to lead an engagement/war.  We must demand our next President outlay their strategy before they are elected.

Understanding the Presidential candidate conflict strategy will give voters a “Yes” or “No” option.  Subsequently, their Congressional candidates will have a black/white option on if they will declare the war AND fund the strategy outlined by their preferred Presidential candidate.  The voter should have the choice in picking a strategy to WAGE a WAR.  The voter should have a choice with their Congressional representatives to DECLARE AND FUND THE WAR.  This is how we will achieve representative government.

7.  We need to elect decisive and strong leaders.  Period.


This is the crux of the accountability report.  I have written more for your benefit to maximize the money I’ve been given to spend on Facebook to educate Nebraska.  If you wish to read further (I realize this is not brief),  I am blogging on these additional related topics:

1. President Trump cites caution in future offensive engagements

2. Senator Fischer’s Passivity in Budget Compromise.

3.  Is Senator Fischer Conservative?

4. Iran Tests Precision Missile. The Similar Fact Pattern to Nazi Germany

5. Russian Aggression.  Putin is Providing the Leadership Lacking From Our President and Congress

6. The Consequences of Being Afraid to debate

7. Funding Defense

8. Closing thoughts as a Civil Independent

Presidential Candidate Trump Now Cites Caution in Future Engagements

It is great to hear Presidential Candidate Trump echo an approach Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and I advocate for.  We need more defense and less offense.

America’s “Proneness to Offense” lies in our sensitivity to evil dictators portrayed by the media.  Americans love to pin their anger on one face (cue Media Evil Dictator Picture) and engage an offensive war.  Americans need to evolve and focus on defense.  In my personal opinion, foreign policy needs to return to focusing on a balance of power in a region.  I believe we need to do a better job in understanding the chaos America creates when we disrupt existing power by going on offense in an area that does not enhance worthy national interests (please exempt International Oil as an ‘Interest’).

We need to be more sensitive to the greater evil waiting in the wings of an evil dictator.  Our removal of “Organized Evil” creates an environment of chaos where “Non Organized Evil” can thrive and inflict greater damage.  Pick your poison.  “Organized Evil” with a more stable/non-imperialistic history is often the wiser choice in foreign policy when two evil options are at play.

Senator Fischer’s Passivity in Budget Compromise

Senator Fischer is compounding the problem in the Middle East.  SHE WOULD NOT SUPPORT Senator Cruz’s amendment to defund the implementation of the Iranian deal from the continuing operations vote.  Since the originally understood Iran treaty failed to be blocked, NEW AND SUBSTANTIAL CONTRACT LANGUAGE has surfaced that fundamentally changed the agreement as understood by the Senate.

Why has Senator Fischer not taken bold substantive action with the revelations of new self inspection knowledge?  She mistakenly stated “Self-Inspect” was not true at a Chadron town hall in August.  Unfortunately, we have learned the self inspect citations are true as the first samples were turned over by Iranian officials late last month.  Should we not reconsider the ACTUAL treaty being offered with “Self Inspect” language?

President Obama was caught in another lie.  At the passage of the ORIGINAL deal he stated in BOLD fashion, “Iran has agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regimes……This deal is not based on trust, it is based on unprecedented verification.”

I trust these self inspections as much as I trust a “Change in Behavior” proclamation from our 2 political parties.

This deal could not be trusted from the start.  However, based on new “Self-Inspection” language it would be hard for any rational official to back the actual treaty (Not the one they originally voted for based on lies from the administration).

The ACTUAL treaty is clearly not based on, “Robust, intrusive, and transparent inspections.” as promised by the President. We need a new vote based on a fully disclosed treaty to honor the Constitution.

In the wake of this new information, Senator Fischer remained silent in supporting a new amendment to strip enforcing the Iran Deal from the continuing resolution.  In addition, the establishment failed at bringing the NEW TREATY WITH SUBSTANTIAL SIDE DEALS to a vote.  Passivity at its worse.  Our National security interests will suffer as a result.

Based on this passivity in the face of new unprecedented danger and her authorization of a failing Syrian strategy, our national security has been placed in danger.

National Security Aside….Is Senator Fischer Even An Advocate for Conservatism?

Putting National Security aside, is she even an advocate for conservatism by voting for a continuing resolution to run up the debt WITHOUT A SINGLE CUT AND 100% FUNDING of Planned Parenthood?

What proclaimed conservative can support a singular bill that fails national security, social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism at the same time?

I’m entirely fed up with the National Republican Party and their false claims to be advocates of conservatism.

When will Senator Fischer say “No”?  When will she say “Enough”?

We have watched Senator Fischer authorize and fund the Rebels in 2014 that enabled a world crisis.  We watch Senator Fischer vote “Yes” and continue to fund an out of control government and Planned Parenthood in 2015.   We watch Senator Fischer fail to take up the amendment that will withhold funds from a “Self Inspect” Iranian treaty.  We watch as our Senator’s passivity allows $100+ Billion to flow to Iran to fund their initiatives.  I could keep going…..

What will be the travesty in the December continuing resolution?  What will her passivity bring to America’s land in 2016?  What is her lasting contribution to America her first three years that jumps to mind?  What will it take for a continuing resolution to be stopped by Senator Fischer and her Republican Allies?  What is it going to take for her to get tough and stand for principles?  Can she win ONE concession from Democrats in a continuing resolution “Compromise?”

(PS–The Democrats may have the worst “Compromising” behavior in the history of American politics)

Senator Fischer…I will pay you a few compliments to keep this balanced.  You are great taking pictures with the kids.  You are great taking pictures with the Nebraska industry groups that fund your campaign.  Your social graces are much stronger than mine.  You read the scripts crafted by party leadership forcefully on the floor. You articulate accurate frustrations with Obama.  You make the casual Republican comfortable.  You are very friendly and approachable to the public.

However, we are in an era that needs bolder leadership.  The educated conservative knows these actions do not ‘cut it’ in serving our national interest.

I’m encouraging you to put down the passivity and act with convicted and courageous leadership.  One statement against Iran, Planned Parenthood, and overspending is not strong enough.  We need you to fight and bring these critical issues to the floor.  We need  you to put up a strong fight for a REAL compromise with some basic conservative influence in a continuing resolution.

I’m encouraging you to embrace independent wisdom to navigate this country into a stronger future.  We need courageous conviction to stop the measures that fund ideas, philosophies, and positions you were elected to change/fight/reverse.

The evidence clearly demonstrates you only fight for principles when the media is quiet and/or the stakes for the party are low.  Compromising principles for popularity and perceived future power needs to stop!

Nebraskans you need to call your Senator and demand grit.  These continuing resolutions have dire consequences for our nation.  We have a baby dying every 90 seconds, dangerous threats advancing in Iran, American hostages remaining unaddressed in Tehran, and an additional growing $2 billion of debt a day passing to our kids, etc. etc. etc.

We cannot allow this behavior of our government to continue.

The Latest IRANIAN Test Missile and How it Relates to Nazi Germany

If you study the history of Nazi’s testing the “V-2 Rocket”, the situation is eerily similar to the fact pattern happening in IRAN.  Hitler sold his victims a lie.  He was buying time to develop weapons like the V-2 rocket and strengthen his war machine. He would violate his promises and conquer them later after his power was consolidated and his war machine was mature.

90% of the people who knew better remained silent in the face of Hitler’s evil…sound familiar? Knowledge without courage is dead.

With this ‘context’ in mind, Iran continues to chant Death to America and test longer ranged precision missiles AFTER the agreement.  America, don’t be stupid with formal Iranian promises.  Don’t believe their lies and ignore the popular rhetoric behind the scenes (or in the ‘open’ on Twitter). Don’t ignore the testing of new precision missiles.

Unfortunately, Senator Fischer is laying down her gun.  She lays Nebraska’s vote and America’s purse on the table.  To compound the problem, Senator Sasse remains quiet on the floor of the US Senate until November in a self imposed moratorium of silence.

They both should know better.  We need bold action now.

Iran Tests Missile

Putin and Russian Aggression.  His Leadership.  Our Passivity.

In addition to trumpeting Syrian rebel failures, Senator Fischer is sounding the alarm on Putin and Russian Aggression. However, take note America.  Putin is showing 100 times the leadership and gumption then both our legislative branch and POTUS COMBINED.  He is leading the action in Syria.  He is fighting “Our Funded 4 Rebels” as well as those that defected to ISIS leadership.  We would be in massive conflict and trouble with Russia if their aggression with our “Funded Rebels” was against a legitimate opposing force America actually believed in.

Meanwhile, our President continues to execute a disastrous policy in the Middle East.  To our President’s credit, our legislative branch doesn’t even have a plan.  Their plan is to blame POTUS for his.  This is a broken theme by the GOP in healthcare, border control, Syria, healthcare, and on and on.

I know Obama is failing.  I knew that before the 855th Facebook post of the year pointing to this fact.  My concern is and has always been…What are the Republicans going to do about it?  The answer has been nothing.

Republican power in 2016 at the cost of leadership in 2015 for the GOP is the perpetual answer.

Compromising principle for power is and always will be embarrassing.  Historical ‘context’ tells us that control of all 3 branches does not translate into proper use of power (see turn of the century).  Demand action today.

The Consequence of Being Afraid to Debate

To make it worse, the Republican voters continue to elect people that are afraid to debate.  What do Nebraskans expect to happen on the floor of the US Senate when they elect people that will not DEBATE Pre-Election to an audience of Nebraskans asking tough and fair questions?  The voters perpetuate a lack of courage in Congress with their complicit voting record.  They vote for those practicing ‘silence’ they witnessed firsthand.

We need a new POTUS.  We need a new legislative branch that will lead. America’s future hangs in the balance.  Principled platforms of border security, pro-life, and national security cannot endure silence when the subject matter presents itself for vote on the floor of the Senate.

Unfortunately, these (in)actions have now extended another year after the 2014 election where my volunteers and I offered principled change to the status quo.  We’ve continued to move backwards in 2015 with a vacuum of no leadership in the Senate.

Courage…not knowledge…not connections…not campaign war chests… is what we need in Washington at this very hour to save our Country and Constitutional way of life.  Unfortunately, our best hope AT THIS VERY HOUR is Senator Fischer and Senator Sasse.  Despite my warranted frustration, I encourage you to join me in their encouragement.  America needs their action today for a better tomorrow for our children.  Call them to take action.  They need encouragement to avoid the passivity of their party and the misguided intentions of their leaders.  However, hold them accountable for their (in)action in 2018/2020.  This country can no longer afford poor and passive leadership from individuals with conservative and constitutional knowledge.

Funding the Military

Senator Fischer now is harping on the President/Democrats for their inability to adequately fund the military.  Senator Fischer is right. We do need a strong defense.

However, our defense budget would not have to be that large if Senator Fischer and friends made the right decisions from the start.

Would we need as much money in defense if we didn’t have to battle ISIS ARMED WITH OUR EQUIPMENT that Senator Fischer’s authorization to the Rebels provided?  Would we have to stock a larger force to deal with the potential threats Iran poses with weapons purchased with billions from an evolving Iran treaty Senator Fischer will not readdress?

Finally (the part that is not Senator Fischer’s fault), we would not need this level of defensive funds if our country learned to keep our eyes on our own business. We need Americans to trust the Constitution and ignore the media narrative for more world police engagements against “Bad Guys” in a country with even “More Bad Guys” waiting in the wings.

A change in discernment to arm the correct third parties, prohibit the releasing of funds to arm our enemies, and controlling our desire for future world conflict is needed to reestablish Constitutional wisdom for our Republic.

My Closing Thoughts as a Civil Independent

As an Independent, I have a minority opinion both parties could learn from.

Democrats need to stop importing the world to America. Republicans need to stoop trying to export America to the world.  We need to focus on America FOR America. 

How do we solve these problems created by entrenched parties and their donors?  We need a full understanding of the Constitution.  We need voters to value courage and principles over connections to greed, knowledge, and media approval.

Unfortunately, I’m afraid change is not coming as rapid as it needs to (although public pressure on our representatives is starting to change civil behavior).  The study by KU is right.  41% of people will vote for “Their Party” even if they believe their ideas or candidates are not worthy of support.  The conclusion of the study?  Winning is more important than right.

In my opinion, “Not Losing” is more important than winning to the voter.  I find too many conservative Nebraskans are motivated by fear of failure.  Fear of losing trumps advocating for a candidate with an ACTIVE, CLEAR, and VOCAL Constitutional vision. Fear never accomplished anything.  Fear is failing us now.

We will reap what we sew as Caleb and Joshua taught us when we vote for ‘winning’ over ‘right’.  America is unable to stop evil advancing from either side of the aisle when we vote “Not to Lose”, enable passivity, and empower leaders that demonstrate silence.

It is time this losing streak ends.  Please call our representatives and demand they get tough.  THEY HAVE TO CHANGE TO IMPROVE AMERICA!

What is on the line?

A baby will be terminated every 90 seconds.  Our kids debt will rise by $2 billion each day.  Iran will gain time to deploy $100 billion to fund their reign of terror.

We cannot afford another day of passivity and silence from our Representatives. Demand action now!







Posted in Military, National Defense, Uncategorized, Veteran Issues | By

Independent Thought on ISIS

Benedetta Berti : How Groups Like ISIS Stay in Power

Independent Thought On ISIS (A Commentary Around the Insights of Benedetta Berti)

The conflict with the Islamic State (IS) is yet another problem that needs a fresh look from an Independent angle.  Benedetta Berti offers insights in this Ted Talk that I believe will aid in building a “Complete” approach that will keep the enemy from (re)gaining steam.

Clarification #1: My Formal Approach for FUTURE International Engagements 

For those newly exposed to my train of thought, I’m a Constitutionalist.  I believe we are charged by our Founders to focus on providing the common DEFENSE and insuring the DOMESTIC tranquility.  My emphasis is securing this land and not the world.  That said, I realize there is SOME interplay in providing our defense through International involvement.  If I was in charge, I would aim to keep that international exposure limited.

George Washington (Independent) did not try to settle the differences between the French and English.  This foreign policy worked well for our founding and would work well today.

That said, I believe in a very strong DEFENSE.

You CAN be for a “Limited Focus” and a “Strong Defense” in the same sentence.

Clarification #2: The Logical Argument for Keeping a Domestic Focus

The vacuum we leave behind after we remove an “Evil Dictator” overseas is ripe for more evil then what existed before. Saddam was one bad man.  However, is he worse than the IS terrorists that were created by the absence of a strong dictator? Are we better off without a strong check on Iran that Iraq historically provided?

Khadaffi was one bad man. Is he worse than the Islamic terrorists organizing in North Africa that are executing Christians on North Africa beaches?

The government seems hell bent to use that military machine whenever possible to show who is boss to “Evil Dictators”.  However, the questions we ask must change.

A question we need to answer is, ‘Who will likely control the situation when the dictator is removed?’ We need to ask, ‘Will common defense and domestic tranquility be enhanced by our actions?’  We need to determine, ‘What will the balance of power be in the region after the decrease of political power from the removal of the existing regime?’

We need more depth from our political leaders (especially Senators) in approaching international conflict.

I find most conservatives put our style of Democracy as beneficial to the rest of the world. (Clarification: We are a Republic and not a Democracy for the vast majority who are confused).

This is a very prideful approach that fails to account for what works for different cultures and people.  What works for Sweeden works for Sweeden. What works for Saudi Arabia works for Saudi Arabia. What works for the USA works for the USA. Do I agree with their approaches? No.  However, is their approach to their domestic issues any of my business?  No.

I realize for the strength of my own country, I need to leave them alone if they don’t pose a threat to the GENERAL WELFARE of WE THE PEOPLE.

Democrats need to quit trying to make a Swedish approach work for America.  Republicans should quit trying to make an American approach work for the Middle East.  Let’s focus on a CONSTITUTIONAL American way for America.

The Mentality of Citizens from Authoritarian Regimes

Citizens in authoritarian regimes are oftentimes accustomed to being provided for. They often have a hard time transitioning to a Capitalistic/Western approach.  Benedetta picks up this point well.  She cites the lack of “providing” as key fuel/opportunities for regimes.

Most conservatives approach problems with a Founding Father mentality (A very good thing for America). To paraphrase the mentality: “Take out the bad guys, and let the people fill in the needs.”  This works for those who possess character AND love Liberty/Democracy.  Surprisingly, this “Take out the bad guys and leave” has been Obama’s approach as well.

Unfortunately, when you are raised under dictatorship, communism, socialism, etc., the assumptions are different on what one should be providing for themselves.  More times than not, subjects formerly underneath these regimes don’t step up and fill needs.  They think these needs should be provided by those in power.  This is a product of human conditioning.

The reality today is terrorists are filling the needs of people “Left Behind”.  They are used to being provided for by former regimes.

If a terrorist is providing vital healthcare for your child and the other half of power provides nothing for your child—who are you going to be loyal to when you do not/cannot solve a problem yourself?

Parties Claims Against Each Other

Both parties’ claims against the other party are correct.

America should not have intervened in Iraq in the first place.  A valid claim by Democrats (even though the vast majority voted FOR it) against the Republicans.

America should not have vacated the region in the second place.  A valid claim by the Republicans against the Democrats.

Both parties fumbled the ball in Iraq.  It is time to move on from the blame game and solve the problem.  Unfortunately, bipartisan solutions are not a Democrat or Republican thing.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Party in Foreign Conflict – My Opinion

The Democrats are soft in my opinion in leading the military. They tend to be more prone to mercy then justice. I strongly desire a justice oriented person to lead a force and execute. Our Congress needs to step up and declare a war.  We have political cowards in our Legislative Branch.  They continue to defer to our weak President instead of owning the direction of engagements around the world.

Furthermore, we need a Commander-In-Chief to see through the mission Congress authorizes (when that day comes). We do not get this decisive leadership with Obama or Hillary.  They get manhandled at the negotiating table (take your pick from hostage negotiation to Iran).  They cannot accurately define the enemy.  They do not lead with decisiveness, strength, or responsibility.

Yet, when the fighting is done, the needs of citizens under authoritarian regimes surface and are left unresolved.  Republicans are horrible in answering “needs” of base level citizens familiar with life under authoritarian regimes. Obama, unlike most Democrats, couldn’t solve a legitimate human need if he wanted to.  In general, I’m usually looking to Democrats and not Republicans when mercy is on the line at an International level.

America seldom has sufficient plans to meet individual needs affected by war.  This comes back to bite us when we have not provided the infrastructure for people prone to a “King”.

Answering those needs often determines whether we will experience regional progress or a vacuum that will create the next world problem.

Ultimately, International conflict is a problem Democrats and Republicans could solve if they worked together.  This takes coordination of efforts between people more prone to either justice or mercy.  This would take a maturity that different people offer different strengths.  Unfortunately, we have both parties that think they are good at everything.  Rebuilding an entire society where leadership is removed of people who are used to being controlled takes all talents and mentalities.

Todd—You advocate meeting important needs in Iraq.  Why not America?

Let’s be clear.  We should never have been in Iraq in the first place.  Unfortunately, America created instability. America is going to have to be a part of the solution.

Second, America has a better way to solve domestic problems with a population well versed in “Filling the Gap.”  This is where the thinking of what works in Sweden/Saudi Arabia does not work for America.  More importantly, this violates the Constitutional charge of “Promoting” (not providing) the General Welfare.  This “Providing” the General Welfare has created the biggest financial disaster at the government level that should not have occurred in the first place.

The societal problems at home are what Democrats pound the table to solve.  They have identified big problems, but offer poor solutions.  Republicans have unfortunately turned their back on problems for the sake of donors and continually fail at drafting a solution (seen a “Replace” plan for Obamacare yet?).

Furthermore, one of the biggest reasons I’m an Independent Conservative and not a Republican is that we need to tackle healthcare, income inequality, and economic progress in a flat, non partial, Constitutional approach designed by our founders.   People expressed fear when I ran because I’m a “Populist”.  Business professionals like Greenspan (Chief Representative of the Establishment) always matched “Redistribution” with populism.  The reality is there is a Constitutional design that does not redistribute but tackles healthcare, income inequality, etc. with a Constitutional approach.  This takes adjustments in our monetary approach of which the majority of the GOP base will not tackle due to their donors who provide hoards of cash to the party based on the benefits of drifting from Constitutional design.  We can solve these issues for the benefit of all the people in a Constitutional and conservative approach.  Favoritism for donors cannot be a part of the process.

We will solve the problem when government AND business elites do not set law over the people.   Corporate fascism and Socialism are both inferior outcomes to a liberty oriented Republic crafted by citizens with character.  This is why we spiral down with either party in control.  This is why we spiral down as an American society without a backbone of conviction.  Our government needs to return to creating frameworks and not playing favorites.  Our people need to rebuild their moral fiber.

Read James 2 if you think Partiality is “Just the Way it Is” and what America should settle for in legislation dependent on lobbyists who get their way with paid for candidates.  Partiality is a sin if you read the “Good” book.

Developing the “Final Plan” for IS

The next Commander In Chief needs to have a frame of reference of what is being asked if Congress wants to engage in conflict.  The next Congress needs to fund a “Complete Plan WITH Societal Rebuild” if we want to undertake another war in a land conditioned to an authoritarian/socialistic/communistic bend.  I DO NOT recommend this course of action.

Destroying the Islamic State is not a FULL answer.  I want to hear a “Complete” plan that understands what has to be built to avoid the next “Vacuum” IS will fill.  Until the mission is clearly defined….we are wasting our time, money, and worse yet……blood.  It is time to define the mission and enemy.

(Side note: I want Lyndsey Graham on the stage for the next GOP debate.  I’m not for Senator Graham but he adds to the debate.  His tone is bland but his positions on the Middle East are bold. He takes a strong position for a ground war with ISIS.  I want the opinions on the subject drawn out from the other candidates.  He offers a decisive position.  The other candidates are too indecisive and need a more evolved on the record strategy as Commander-In-Chief.)

Thanks for your time.  I hope you enjoy this TED talk.  I think she has great material and insights to add to the discussion of a complete strategy.

PS—Here is another helpful TED talk in understanding how organizations of crime/terror support themselves.  I think some of the great “Western” insights into these groups come from Italy with stronger historical ties to organized crime.

Insights on Terrorism

Posted in Military, National Defense, Obama, Uncategorized | By

Privacy and the NSA – Independent Thought is Needed!

Christopher Soghoian: A Brief History of Phone Wiretapping — and How to Avoid It


America Has the Intelligence Gathering/Privacy Debate Wrong

Should the United States government collect/monitor our data to protect us from threats foreign and domestic?  Should we adhere to strict privacy for individuals and observe the 4th amendment?  The error of the first question lies in the assumption being presented by party politicians.  More on this later….

An Example of the ‘Fight’ between both sides of the debate

The best example of this poorly defined debate was on stage in Cleveland when Governor Chris Christie and Senator Rand Paul had an intense argument over this issue.  The reality is they both have fair points to support their views.  Watch the debate if you are unfamiliar with the “Main Stream” arguments.

Governor Christie vs. Senator Paul

The Pro NSA Republicans Never Articulate a Constitutional Argument

Governor Christie, like many Republicans who are pro NSA, offer decent points but orate a negligible Constitutional argument.  NSA proponents frame a logical argument that phone data must be monitored to protect us from terrorists.  NSA proponents continue to fail at arguing a Constitutional standard Senator Paul can strongly articulate.

What pro NSA Republicans should articulate on a CONSTITUTIONAL basis is, “We need the NSA to do our Constitutional Role of Insuring the Domestic Tranquility and Providing the Common Defense.”

How we Insure the Domestic Tranquility, Provide the Common Defense, and Observe the 4th Amendment should be a robust American debate.  All 3 are important elements to our founding documents.  We should settle the issue with a transparent law to the American people based on an accurate understanding of the situationUnderstanding has not yet happened (Read On).

Furthermore, we should consider a Constitutional amendment on the issue to make sure our laws do not conflict with the Constitution.   Clarity, consistency, and dependability of our founding document is very important.

My Revelations from Continued Exploration

I’ve continued to explore the merits of both arguments.  What I have found is the American people are very passionate (both ways) on the issue.  However, I have determined most Americans are debating the question under a false assumption.   The failed assumption is that the two competing interests are the US government monitoring our data and individual privacy of their information.  This failed assumption is based on a failed understanding of telecommunication devices and a clueless media narrative provided to the public.  This TED talk video will help you understand telecommunications infrastructure and the capabilities of all entities with current cell phone specifications.  This video helped me frame two new questions that I believe are more pertinent to the “NSA/Individual Privacy” debate.

Are you in favor of WORLD governments (Including US), terrorists, organizations or other citizens being able to gather data/spy on your calls?

Are you in favor of the government dictating the architectural standards of how companies build their communication devices?

One Expert

Christopher Soghoian is a telecommunications expert. I believe this TED talk will enlighten the ‘Average Joe’ on how telecom works and will be useful to my followers who enjoy Independent discussion to find a better answer.

He makes two strong points that I believe most Americans have not considered. 

More entities (Not just the US government) will have access to gather data on you if you diminish individual security of devices. 

Modern day technology would have to be built to a new standard dictated by government to enable easier monitoring.

Would Pro NSA individuals be for monitoring if they knew the Chinese (they seem to be more successful in 21st century data gathering) were the ones monitoring your phone?

Would Pro NSA individuals be for dictating the architecture private companies use to build their devices to enable a government to monitor phone calls?

These are questions/statements that I think change the perspective of the average American engaging the quesiton.

American representatives should not duck the question and leave this unsettled in a structured Democracy.  We are settling this issue.  Unfortunately, the issue is being settled on a false understanding of the choices.  Let’s pick the path as a nation (Congressional vote), accept the consequences, and move forward together known a vigorous debate was had and a decision was settled upon by a democratic process.  Finally, let’s continue to strive to meet all 3 Constitutional goals and realize this is a very sticky issue.

Some Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, Christopher is for individual privacy.  He makes a very strong argument for his position in a respectful manner (he acknowledges the threats).

I have yet to find the complete answer that protects privacy (4th amendment), Insures the Domestic Tranquility, and Provides the Common Defense.  This maybe an unrealistic goal on this issue.

My hope is intelligent debate based on an accurate understanding of the choices may lead to breakthroughs in achieving all 3 Constitutional goals.  I hope this blog will further the understanding of the choices at hand.

Christopher is one more expert (not party boss/not donor) I choose to listen to for the benefit of the people.  I hope you find his presentation helpful in understanding the situation at a deeper level.   Let’s have a robust and respectful debate on the topic WITH AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING of the choices we are making!

Posted in Constitution, National Defense, Uncategorized | By