You Asked ... Peter Answered

Thanks for your email. I see the deficiency noted by you, so will be expanding it further.

While our government certainly needs to protect intellectual properties of copyright holders, I believe we have gone in the wrong direction. Using the federal government to bully kids (and adults) for posting music on web sites is a complete waste of time and resources. The reality is, there is absolutely no evidence that the proliferation of digital music availability through peer to peer networking has had any negative impact on sales and profits of the music industry. The same holds true for the movie and software industry.

The truth is, most people who download "pirated" multimedia and software would never purchase the product anyway. To believe that the kid barely out of school would really spend $2,500.00 on Adobe CS3 Master collection, but won't because he found an illegal copy on the internet is ridiculous. Prosecution for copyright infringement should be limited to those people or businesses that profit from the use and/or distribution of the multimedia or software. Certainly, if you sell the multimedia or software, then you should be prosecuted. If a business makes money from the use of the software or multimedia, then they should be prosecuted for the piracy. Those who simply distribute the multimedia or software at no charge (while I in no way condone such) should be left alone. To use the federal government and its police powers to bully kids and their parents for peer to peer media swapping is a serious overreaching of the authority granted by the Constitution.

Again, I am certainly not condoning the practice of even casual software and multimedia piracy, but to use our massive federal government to bully and torment families for an act that there is NO PROOF has caused any losses to the industry is simply wrong and needs to be halted.

Peter

Thanks again. Of course, I am more than happy to share my views on these other issues.

1. Software Patents. I do not support the notion of applying patents to intangibles such as "Software". Software is already fully protected with copyright laws, so to use patent law to protect software is an obvious waste of resources. If we allow software to be patented, then when will we start patenting other results of "thought." How about patenting unique sports offense or defense strategies? How about patenting the way we use our tools (I was an electrician at one time.) We could go on and on finding other ways to patent the results of the way we think and work, the process we develop, etc. Where will this end?

Not only is the notion of Software patents absurd, its current use is actually a detriment to the software industry.

I am against "Software Patents."

2. Internet Regulation. This one is a little more complex to answer. First, I believe the federal government should never "regulate" the internet, just as they should not regulate our ability to travel or communicate with each other. There are circumstances, however, when it is necessary (for our society's well being) to involve themselves. Child Pornography is an excellent example. Due to the fact that crimes such as these cross State and even National lines, it is obvious that we need the federal government to intervene when necessary.

On the issue of companies such as "Comcast" throttling bandwidth, we have two questions to answer. First, is this interstate commerce? Yes it is. Is allowing the throttling of bandwidth or blocking legal content against the common good. Yes it is. While I am against the federal government regulating businesses, the fact that this is interstate commerce allows for the federal government to regulate the business. Allowing the throttling of internet bandwidth or blocking certain protocols is no different than allowing interstate phone companies to "tier" the quality of their services provided to the consumers. We would never allow them to provide poor quality to consumers nor allow them to block customers from being able to call certain groups of people, then, why should the internet be any different. I am in complete support of the FCC's actions against Comcast and would support legislation to make Net Neutrality the Law of the land.

I will always support Net Neutrality.

I hope this sufficiently answers your question.

Peter

Monica,

The short answer is, Yes I do and will support the fair tax.

My number one priority will be to abolish the office of the IRS, and the fair tax proposal would get us there. I want to make it clear, however, this support can only be based on the abolition of the current system and the ridding ourselves of the IRS. I would never support the option offered of a portion of our taxes being derived from sales taxes with the rest coming from income tax. This would only be an open door to additional new taxes with no real changes. The IRS must be abolished. It is an issue of liberty. As long as we maintain a federal entity that has the surveillance powers and authority given to the IRS, we will continue to be pawns of the government.

I am careful to take at face value Dr. Boustany's support of the fair tax, when he voted to give the IRS new (and permanent) authority to conduct undercover operations. This was another earmark that he supported in his "YES" vote on the massive bailout. This earmark (now law) immunizes the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. When he claims to support the "Fair Tax", but votes to give the IRS unprecedented powers, I have to believe his support is disingenuous. Of course, that is something voters must decide on their own.

Thanks for your interest in my campaign and I hope I have sufficiently answered your question.

Peter

From: http://peternow.com/iss_taxes.php

"I will support legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will vote against any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. While the flat-rate tax and national sales tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system fall short of where we need to be, I would support them as a replacement to our current tax system, but only to the extent that our current system be abolished.. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax"

Thank you for your interest in my campaign.

I am running as a member on the Constitution Party of Louisiana ( http://http://www.CPofLA.org/ ) which is an affiliate of the U.S. Constitution Party ( http://ConstitutionParty.com ).

I received the nomination from the Constitution Party of Louisiana at their Convention on March 15, 2008 in Baton Rouge.It was an honor to have received the nomination from this principled Party and I am proud to represent them as their Congressional candidate.

Peter

Thank You, Roxanne. It will be an honor to serve and represent you in Washington.

Peter

Mr. Rigo,

First, please accept my apologies for not answering the question to you satisfaction.

In the case you are discussing, it is apparent that we are talking about interstate pollution. Obviously, there are many cases where this is occurring, and I definitely was not trying to avoid the issue.

In all cases, we must first address the clean up of the pollution, in a manner that result in the most rapid removal of all pollutants. I believe the best approach for this is to offer up to bid the cleanup to contractors to the lowest bidder. To insure proper and complete clean up, we should require proper bonding for the entire estimated cost. I would wish to require the bonding amount to be 150% of the second to highest bidder or 100% of the highest bidder, whichever is highest. By requiring this bonding we protect ourselves against contractors who might not be able to properly complete the task. Also, we should require by contract, that the contractor guarantee his work for a period of at least 5 years, since it will take time to verify the completion.

The next thing we must do is locate the source of the problem. If it is determined that the source is from another nation, the we would seek proper compensation from that nation to cover our costs. If it is determined that the pollution comes from another State, then we would require that the State reimburse all cleanup costs, and let the State resolve the problems of the responsible party along with recouping costs.

In this manner, we can quickly clean up the pollution and reduce federal encroachment in State affairs.

I hope this answers the question to your satisfaction and welcome your response if If there is any further clarifications necessary.

Thanks again for your interest in our campaign.

Peter

Thank you for the question.

I would seek legislation to repeal the Act. Should repeal legislation fail, then I will actively participate it trying to get the Act declare null and void by the Supreme Court (Which, unfortunately, will tale a long time.)

Peter

Thank you for this thoughtful question.

The answer is a little long to cover here. There is an excellent article on the web that completely covers the problems with the judiciary along with the actions that can and should be taken by Congress. Here is the link:

The Imperial Judiciary—And What Congress Can Do About It

You will find Article 3 Section 2 addressed in item 3 about halfway down the page. I'd recommend reading the entire article, however.

Here are links to other articles concerning this approach :

Abortion: Narrowing the Court's Jurisdiction (H.R. 4327)

Independent American Party Resolution to Ban Abortion

Kill the Spider!

Legislation Seeks to Remove Partial Birth Abortion From Lower Federal Courts

As you can see, this isn't a unique approach that I am espousing. The are many who have recognized that Congress do have the authority and SHOULD use their authority to shut down the Supreme Court from hear cases that result in decisions that are contrary to the Constitution.

Now, while I am opposed to tampering with the Constitution, I would support a Constitutional amendment to declare the personhood of the life that begins a conception and a way to prevent later congresses from re-authorizing the Supreme Court from hearing abortion cases. However, ratification of this amendment will be difficult and time consuming, so we need to immediately use Article 3 Section 2 to stop the Supreme Court from hearing abortion cases NOW.

Peter