A Few Questions For Alex Snitker, Libertarian Candidate For The US Senate From Florida
Alex Snitker, the 34 year old husband, father, salesman and ex-Marine from West Central Florida is the first Libertarian US Senate Candidate for the state.
Mr. Snitker has thrown his hat in the ring armed with free market principles and a non-interventionist foreign policy to take on several big name establishment candidates to include current governor, long time Florida political figure and “independent” Charlie Crist and former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives Republican Marco Rubio.
According to his campaign website, Alex Snitker is for establishing the Fair Tax, term limits for both the Senate and the House, balance budget amendments, a non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Federal Reserve, strong illegal immigration reform, border control and energy independence.
What caught my attention was a story last month where the Florida Press Association had a senatorial debate in Sarasota but neglected to invite Snitker. Instead of ignoring the exclusion, Snitker drove down to Sarasota and “crashed” the event with some strong words for the gathered press, saying, “I’d like to make a statement. I think denying a person who served eight years in the United States Marine Corps defending your right to have this today…is an atrocity.”
He went on say “You keep saying that career politicians are the problem, and you’re only going to allow career politicians and a billionaire on stage. You want to talk about the tea party candidate? It’s not Marco Rubio – it’s Alexander Snitker.”
I contacted Mr. Snitker to ask him a few questions concerning policy, philosophy and the difficulties of being a third party candidate.
Herriman: The news cycle is driven by the BP oil spill and the talking heads and politicians are pointing fingers in all directions. But while the fingerpointing continues, the problem continues and now Florida is affected. As the Libertarian Senatorial candidate for the State of Florida, who is responsible for this mess and what do you consider the appropriate actions by all parties involved?
Snitker: Without question, BP is responsible for this crisis, and they should be held completely accountable for the cleanup effort. That being said, the federal government has failed miserably on their part by placing obstacles in the way of states, municipalities, local groups, and BP. Two perfect examples are Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s efforts to build sandbar birms to prevent the oil from reaching the wetlands meeting stiff resistance from the Obama Administration. The second is the federal government’s refusal to lift the Jones Act and allow foreign vessels to assist in the skimming operations.
The states and local governments should be unrestricted in their efforts to protect their own shoreline, and they should be able to send the bill to BP.
Herriman: I know as far as illegal immigration, Florida’s problems are quite different than Arizona’s, but what are your thoughts on what the State of Arizona is doing (constitutionally)?
Snitker: The Constitution states that only Congress has the power to create laws regarding immigration and naturalization, however, it places no restrictions on states enforcing those laws.
For example, counterfeit currency is another area where only the federal government is constitutionally authorized to create and enforce law. However, if a local sheriff stopped a car for speeding and found $1,000,000 in counterfeit currency in the vehicle, it would stand to reason that he could detain that person and turn them over to federal authorities for prosecution.
There are parts of the Arizona law that are perfectly reasonable, such as requiring anyone stopped or arrested for a violation of state or local law to provide identification. If the individual cannot provide some form of identification, such as a driver’s license or state identification, that requires proof of citizenship or legal residence before being issued, than that person can be turned over to federal authorities for potential deportation.
Where the Arizona law may have some problems is that it prescribes additional state penalties for violation of the state law regarding immigration. The U.S. Justice Department may have a Constitutional argument for that portion of the law.
Herriman: On your website you talk about a non-interventionist foreign policy and want to bring the troops home. But you also stipulate before we come home we need to find Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. What are we doing wrong and what should we do to achieve that objective?
Snitker: Early in the war on terror, the prior administration took their eye off the ball, and failed to focus on the objective of finding bin Laden and bringing him to justice. The current administration is basically just extending the previous policies, despite campaigning to the contrary. The focus seems now to be nation building, coalition governments, and better schools for the Afghan people. That’s not why we are risking the lives of our servicemen and women. It is not worth American blood or treasure to give Afghans better roads and sewer systems.
If it is our objective to find and kill or prosecute Osama bin Laden and his accomplices, then I suggest a letter of marquee and reprisal, coupled with a huge bounty on bin Laden et al. If we were to place a bounty as high as the cost of a single month of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan on bin Laden, say roughly $10 billion, I believe that he would be delivered to us fairly quickly.
Herriman: How much of our economic problems do you believe are a result of the Federal Reserve? If elected to the Senate would you have voted for S 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act? If yes, do you think S 604 does enough?
Snitker: I attribute the systemic problems that create the boom and bust cycles on the Federal Reserve System. If left unchecked, the ability of the Treasury and the Fed to create fiat currency out of nothing will result in runaway inflation. Congress’ spending is out of control. We have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The Fed gives congress an unlimited blank check. Couple these together and you have a recipe for economic collapse.
Auditing the Fed is the first step. I would vote for any bill that exposes the Fed’s practices, with the ultimate goal of retuning America to a sound monetary policy.
Herriman: I understand that you are active in the Florida Tea Party. However in the local and national media, your Republican opponent, Marco Rubio is almost always called the Tea Party candidate. If you are both Tea Party candidates, what are the main philosophical and policy differences between you two?
Snitker: I find it amusing that Rubio is considered the tea party candidate in this race. He is not. He has said so himself. He refuses to be vetted by the tea parties, and he won’t even respond to their questionnaires. I have been vetted by several tea party groups, and support among tea party members has been shifting toward me lately. I am willing to put my signature on pledges such as the 10thAmendment Pledge, whereas he has not.
The main difference between me and Mr. Rubio is that I actually believe in limited government and individual liberty. He speaks in campaign rhetoric, whereas I present an action plan. He is willing to compromise on issues like government’s role in healthcare and illegal immigration. I, on the other hand, will stand firm on Constitutional principles. He looks more toward compromise and half measures, such as continuing to manipulate the tax code rather than repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing it with the FairTax, which is what I pledge to do.
We are on the precipice of the fall of our great nation, both in terms of our prosperity and our role as the beacon of liberty to the world. If we are to reverse course, we must elect candidates who are true constitutional conservatives. We must elect candidates who look at public office as a civic duty, not a personal entitlement.
Herriman: It has become so cliché to toss around Ronald Reagan’s name or the founders, but who are your current models in public service that you feel were effectively representing their constituents and abiding by their oath of office and to the Constitution?
Snitker: I believe that Texas Congressman Ron Paul is probably the best example of a principled public servant in office today.
Herriman: And finally, you made the news recently when you discovered you were not invited to the Florida Press Association in Sarasota and essentially went there and “crashed” it and you were still not allowed to participate. Ron Paul had said frequently how incredibly difficult it is for a third party candidate to get on ballots and in the debates. Two questions. First, what do you believe the other candidates and the media are afraid of? And what changes would you like to see so third party candidates wouldn’t have such a difficult time?
Snitker: I think that they are afraid of a change in the paradigm. They are afraid of a common sense, regular citizen running for office. They are afraid of the people who can’t be bought, and aren’t seeking a career in politics.
In today’s political world, elections are determined by the candidate the public hates the least. For far too long, the political class has had a stranglehold on the media. Candidates run attack ads against one another so they can avoid taking a stand on difficult issues, and the media gives them the venue to do so.
The media is an unwilling accomplice in this regard, because they’ve bought into the idea that we only have two choices. The media accepts that the candidates will dodge tough questions, or want to review the questions they will be asked in advance. They accept preconditions and off limits subjects as the price for getting the big interview. They see it as part of the political game. I have been constantly surprised at the true lack of objectivity from many in the media, and how the press allows the major Republican and Democrat candidates to dictate to them what the news will be.
There was a time in this nation when the media was considered the fourth branch of government, providing a check and balance on the other three. Today, it seems as if the media is more like a public relations firm for the political establishment. Much has been said about left vs. right bias in the media. However I see it as more of a media bias in favor of the political establishment, to the detriment of we the people.
Currently, third party and independent candidates have to prove their viability to the media before they receive any coverage. But, ironically, viability is usually dictated by media coverage. In essence, the media won’t cover candidates who aren’t being covered by the media…unless, of course, you are a billionaire like Jeff Greene.
In this race, the media is putting forth the idea that there are three choices, with Charlie Crist being the independent. But pretending that Crist is not part of the political establishment is like pretending that John Gotti was a legitimate businessman. Since the media has created the narrative that this is a three-way race, that’s what many people believe. We have made great strides in rewriting the narrative, but we’ve still got a long way to go to level the playing field.
I suggest that the media adopt a policy much like our justice system, where you are innocent until proven guilty. All qualified candidates for office should be assumed to be viable until proven otherwise. Give the people the tools they need to make a truly informed decision.
Mr. Snitker, I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer these questions for the Desk of Brian readers. We wish you success in your candidacy for the US Senate in Florida.
Photos/Snitker for US Senate Facebook page
