James Reesor 2010 Campaign Issues #3

The Family Action Council of Tennessee

Introduction: Yesterday, 2 July 2010, I received a candidate survey from David Fowler, president of The Family Action Council of Tennessee. They, along with Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, will be making my views available to their statewide constituency via a broadcasting network airing in over 70 counties – plus electronically at:  http://www.focusvoter.com

"1. Do you support or oppose prohibiting local school systems from teaching “abstinence only” sex education?"

James Reesor Response: Public education in America does not conform to
my understanding of God or the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ in regard to the “morality” of procreation.

Sexual interaction between unmarried consenting adults should be regarded as
rebellion against natural and spiritual laws. Intercourse, itself, facilitates the merging
of souls – which is a powerful concept that most professing Christians seem not to understand. This is the reason adultery, fornication – or a variety of sexual
perversions – should be avoided.

Unfortunately for children in schools, the current curriculum pertaining to “sex education” has become secularized – with too much emphasis on biological factors, sensory or emotional experiences. Until “teachers” are thoroughly indoctrinated in
a way that is compatible with Truth from the perspective of God’s reality, talk of condoms, abstinence, abortion and all other related concepts only serve to confuse young minds. I, therefore, believe the subject of “sex” should be reserved for parents and their children – and or their chosen spiritual counselors. Opening the doors of young, innocent minds to the whims of degenerates in educational institutions is
not a smart move!

"2. Do you support or oppose keeping enrollment in and attendance of pre-kindergarten classes voluntary?"

James Reesor Response: There seems to be an agenda on the part of most sociologists, psychologists, and school officials who believe children need a
“head start” if they are to develop into good students. Early reading and other
learning disciplines are beneficial whether it is provided in public schools or home environments. Though I’m inclined to support “voluntary” rather than “forced” participation in various school programs, our Tennessee state budget will probably preclude continuation of pre-K during these difficult economic times.

Any decision we are forced to make in this regard would have an adverse impact
on “working parents” who believe sending their children to school at an early age is cheaper than services provided by daycare centers. In spite of those who will refuse to vote for me because of this stand, I’m prepared to recommend spending cuts wherever necessary. There are alternatives that can improve how we prepare students of all
ages. They must be prepared adequately to sustain meaningful lifestyles. I’ve been advocating a “Mind Formation System” which would take into account the need
for knowledge from birth to death.

"3. Will you support by publicly endorsing or oppose by publicly stating your opposition to an effort to put on the ballot in 2014 an amendment to the state Constitution, identical to the proposed amendment regarding abortion found in
Senate Joint Resolution 127, as adopted by the 106th General Assembly?"

James Reesor Response: Allowing voters to decide anything does not equate to the judgement of God. There are flaws in our laws. The United States Constitution is no more infallible than our state Constitutions. In this era of sexual promiscuity and immorality on many levels, expecting wisdom to come out of infantile minds in
the form of a “majority vote” seems almost ludicrous to me.

If we approach the “rules” of life in a way that assures everyone the “freedom to do good or evil” as God has done, we would need to emphasize “consequences” for those who choose abortion. Defining the differences between civil rights and criminal acts will always instigate opposition from one side or the other. The “right to abortion in
the Tennessee state Constitution” controversy could easily result in an amendment if enough people believe changing a few words would change hearts. To simply conform to the U.S. Constitution would give lawyers more relief from anxiety than pregnant women – especially if the courts become burdened with enforcement.

Let it be known that my contempt for any process that ends innocent human life in
any form – be it full or partial-birth abortion – has been stated emphatically long before Roe V. Wade in 1973. Just as laws do not guarantee common decency or respect for God and His creations, we might best leave final arbitration in His hands.  

Corrupt people lead to the election of corrupt politicians who then corrupt governments! If there was a minor change in how SJR 127 is to be structured,
I would support it wholeheartedly as follows:

“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of a full or partial-birth abortion. The people retain their God-given right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

"4. Do you support or oppose allowing teachers to help students analyze, evaluate, and critique all the strengths and weaknesses of scientific evidence supporting scientific explanations for such topics as the origin of life and common ancestry?"

James Reesor Response: Teachers need to understand that we are all ignorant,
but some of us are more ignorant than others. None of us have the right to arrogantly force our views upon others who are incapable of understanding fact from fiction. If teachers are allowed to indoctrinate young students in regard to the complex issues of life without giving equal attention to all historic or scientific evidence, then our society will suffer the results of sustained ignorance.

Ongoing debates over the big bang, theory of evolution and the spiritual component parts attributed to the many religions of this world – including “intelligent design”
ideas – must make God wish he had made all of us smarter. The “blind leading the blind” is not something I would advocate. One-sided opinions about the origin of life should be avoided whenever possible – especially in schools. Considering the doctrinal differences between we Christians, it would not be easy to arrive at a consensus when preparing additional curriculum. My basic approach would be to advise moderation, simplicity, and a totality of related information when attempting to enlighten students about everything from superstition to spiritual writings to science-related facts.
Truth and deception are not easy to decipher by those who dominate
modern-day classrooms.

"5. Do you support or oppose the use of anatomically correct reproductions of
male and female sexual organs to visually demonstrate various sexual acts to
high school students?"

James Reesor Response: When God created Adam and Eve to live naked in the garden before they sinned, but later became conscious of their need to escape His scrutiny, we can conclude that their “sin” transformed them in a negative way. When God instructed Isaiah to walk naked and barefoot, He knew that the anatomy of His chosen prophet would be revealed to people of all ages. There are people in this world with a variety of ideas about the human body – and what is good, proper or indecent
is not easily defined. In my humble opinion, attempting to cloak human flesh – which happens to be evidence of the Creator’s magnificent handiwork – should be done
only when “lust” or “fleshly seduction” leads weak people to forsake self-discipline. Constraint would need to be an individual choice simply by turning away or closing eyes. Otherwise, people need to be taught as much as possible about their own
bodies – but in a way that does not promote sexual promiscuity. As we know, “curiosity” can sometimes lead kids to do stupid things.  

"6. Do you support or oppose requiring high schools to make available to parents
of students information about the purposes of, requirements for membership in,
and educational materials used by approved student clubs and organizations?"

James Reesor Response: Parents or guardians should never have authority over
their children challenged in any way by government personnel or school authorities. Responsibility for the well-being of students rests solely upon the rights and privileges of parents. Unless it is proven in a court of law that “incompetence, neglect or abuse" is a factor, they must be kept informed about anything that might jeopardize family relationships. Respect for “authority” starts at home and then continues in school and throughout society. Any attempt to deny parents of students access to information about educational materials, clubs, organizations or other activities – that could conceivably be contrary to their political, religious or philosophical ideals is
something I would oppose. This means that decisions made at home should
supercede decisions made in schools. Parents should never be forced to
acquiesce to federal, state or school board mandates.

"7. Do you support or oppose a state law mirroring federal law that would make
the distribution, broadcast, or transmission of obscene material via satellite or cable television a criminal offense?"

James Reesor Response: Who will we appoint as “God” to interpret what should
be classified as obscene? If laws are to be written and enforced to prevent “freedom
of self-expression” in any form, we might soon find ourselves in court trying to defend art works depicting Christ on the cross, the birthing process, heart surgery or anything else that offends sensitive people. If I had my way, anyone that disagreed with my understanding of God and the Holy Bible would be prohibited from running for public office, talking on radio, appearing on TV shows, or using a computer to access the Internet. Some of the stupid ideas I’ve heard coming from radical, revolutionary progressives is beyond obscene for me. However, realistically, they are inclined to
hate my opinions on issues more than I detest their ranting – because, even though
I’m not yet perfect, I do strive to love my enemies. Condemning them or depriving them of their right to be stupid is not something I would be inclined to do if elected. “Parental controls” are one of many tools available to us when censorship is
required to protect ourselves from contamination.

"8. Do you support or oppose allowing individuals to grow their own marijuana
if it is for medicinal purposes?"

James Reesor Response: Oppose. There should be an argument made for the
use of anything for “medicinal purposes” if it is grown, harvested, and used – free
from government regulations or controls. Back in 1974 when I was a gubernatorial candidate for the first time, this was my exact position regarding the decriminalization of marijuana: “In my opinion formed from observance not use, laws pertaining to the possession and use of this drug are out of proportion to known inherent dangers. Scientific research has shown no correlation between use and aggressive behavior, or acts of violence. It has been the perception of marijuana as being an illegal substance that causes controversy. If the only potential for physical harm from regular use is limited to reduction of white blood cell effectiveness in fighting off viruses, then we need to reconsider the laws. The obvious character weaknesses of many young people are being exploited by drug pushers – because of cannabis preparations that might one day prove to be no more harmful that a chew of tobacco – or a cigarette.”

Not much has changed in 36 years, except millions of dollars have been spent to prosecute and penalize users. Lives have been destroyed needlessly and still we lack the political will to overcome self-destructive behavior among those who are unwilling to respect health and life.

"9. Do you support or oppose prohibiting local governments from requiring, as
a condition of providing goods or services to local government, that employers
provide domestic partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples or to
homosexual couples?"

James Reesor Response: The institution of “marriage” as defined by Judeo-Christian principles in the context of historic traditions must not be debunked merely because “spiritual” degenerates seek to justify their rebellion against God. The same politicians in American government that made abortion a national disgrace – in addition to offending the God I serve – is hellbent on doing further damage for the sake of appeasing certain segments of their constituency. Since none of us are without sin,
and we have no right to judge the sins of others, we must attempt to tolerate evil and show compassion for those who fail to agree with our religious views. I do not believe that old laws should be revised or new laws written that will allow “man/woman” unions to be weakened by other options which I believe would threaten conventional family structures. Even so, I do recognize the need for government to protect the rights of all citizens – no matter what the sexual persuasion. In this particular instance, the burden of providing “benefits” to those who do not qualify as legitimate marriage partners should not be forced upon businesses without full approval. If they choose
to do so voluntarily, I would respect their “charity.” But if a government attempts
to deny any business the right to provide goods or services in the context of the
above outlined reasons, that government should be abolished.

"10. Do you support or oppose eliminating the current process by which the
Governor appoints members to the Tennessee Supreme Court who are later subject
to an uncontested retention referenda and returning to contested popular elections
as were held prior to 1994?"

James Reesor Response: I definitely support making changes in the system –
beyond what is presently being proposed. Partisan politics should never be a factor when selecting justices to the Tennessee Supreme Court. We can thank or blame the high court for appointing the state Attorney General – which is an example of a
change “we the people” should be demanding.

My signature campaign pledge is a promise to work for a single-star flag that
would symbolize unity. If given the opportunity as governor, any amendment to
the Constitution should include doing away with regional requirements in the selection of the five justices. Former Justice Penny White was removed in 1996 because of opposition to the death penalty, and since I also oppose it as currently administered, this would be one of many issues needing scrutiny.

Selection of the justices should be done at the discretion of our General Assembly
with approval by the governor – not by a biased commission. Term limits and removal of justices should be determined by the will of voters in a general election or by a referendum called by the General Assembly or the governor – upon the death, resignation, or impeachment of a sitting judge.

The Tennessee Plan (a modified version of the Missouri Plan) must be streamlined
to cut out waste, duplication of efforts and bureaucratic inefficiency. Experience and proven effectiveness should be valued more highly than expediency or favoritism in court matters. Therefore, a “Yes” or “No” vote by uninformed citizens in the matter
of “retention” is not a practical way to run our state courts. 

"11. Do you support or oppose allowing the people to vote on an amendment to the state Constitution that would expressly allow the Judges of the state Supreme Court
to be appointed by the Governor, subject to a subsequent retention election?"

James Reesor Response: I support “people voting” anytime there is a recommended amendment to the state Constitution no matter what the stated purpose. My response
to your previous question # 10 explains my position more fully.

"12. Do you support or oppose including sexual orientation or preference under Tennessee’s equivalent of the federal civil rights laws?"

James Reesor Response: Laws being written to protect or prosecute citizens because of their “sexual orientation” have no chance of effectively controlling human behavior. There are already too many laws to prove that compassion and morality can not be legislated into existence. Our “civil rights” should not extend to government approval or disapproval of biological or emotional inclinations manifested by various segments of society. This reminds me of my “freedom to do evil” phrase or my personal repulsion for those who molest children. Some people need compassion,
understanding and forgiveness rather than tolerance or acceptance.
  
"13. Do you support or oppose including gender identity under Tennessee’s equivalent of the federal civil rights laws?"

James Reesor Response: A few people in my small circle of friends understand that God made Adam and Eve. We believe the gender of Adam was male and the gender
of Eve was female. Most folks assume that Adam was made in the physical “image” of God, and that the “rib” taken from his side to form Eve produced a woman. Well, since my beliefs often cause me to be ostracized by well-intentioned Christians, I hesitate to respond in a comprehensive way.

Regardless of past experiences with doubters, let me simply say that I believe
God was male and He was female – all in One. Adam was created with the same characteristics, but the removal of the “Eve parts” left him functioning in a diminished mode. Fortunately, the procreation procedure made it possible for the “whole person” originally created by God to come together. The two “merging souls” often result in conception – at which time God imparts a third soul for a potential new body. Billions of souls have come and gone through the centuries and all of them are either male or female – physical. Since “souls” in human bodies are composed of “spirits” and some spirits have male or female tendencies, it is possible for psychological identities to
be incompatible with the fleshly vessel being inhabited. Any law designed to address this issue with clarity should not be written by mortal men. 

"14. Do you support or oppose allowing the people to vote on an amendment to the state Constitution that would ban a tax on earned income (“income tax”)?"

James Reesor Response: We should never allow the “income tax” idea to reach the threshold of serious contemplation! Now is the time to reduce government by 30-50% and lower the rate of taxation an equivalent amount during a seven-year transition
back to reality. We can accomplish that radical plan if all of us together agree to take personal responsibility by creating self-sustaining lifestyles within a free barter market economy. More information about various concepts are found on my web sites.

"15. Do you support or oppose a state law requiring that school policies against bullying place the emphasis on the actions of bullies and not single out specific
kinds of victims or the characteristics of such victims?"

James Reesor Response: Past experiences have convinced me that “bullies” must
not be tolerated in schools or anywhere else. When school officials under the influence of lawyers decide to worry more about potential lawsuits or violent retaliation when dealing with those who torment innocent victims, maybe they need a refresher course in priorities? Obviously, aggressors must be dealt with immediately and appropriately, but victims should have the edge when it comes to resolution. Whatever the excuse for hate, ridicule or contempt, the safety and sense of well-being of every person should always be assured. Having not read such a proposed law in detail, I can only advise those in a position of authority to take both sides of any dispute between bullies and victims seriously and fairly. Never condone brutality!

JAMES REESOR for GOVERNOR 20TEN TENNESSEE
A White Horse Independent

Copy & Share If You Still Dare To Care!