Term Limits:

Term limits should be no greater than 20 years. Why 20 years? This allows a person enough time to learn the system without letting the bureaucracy control the office. It gives them the opportunity to understand how things work and actually have an impact on policy. Twenty years is long enough for a dedicated public servant to gain experience, establish meaningful reforms, and see those reforms through to completion without becoming entrenched in the political machine. Anything longer opens the door to corruption, complacency, and career politicians who prioritize personal gain and power over the will of the people. Term limits ensure a continuous flow of new ideas and fresh leadership, keeping government accountable, transparent, and in touch with the needs of everyday citizens. It also encourages mentorship—allowing seasoned leaders to train their successors before stepping aside—so the focus remains on public service, not lifelong political control.

No, Insider Trading

Just look at Nancy Pelosi—there’s even an app called “Pelosi Tracker” (and others like “Congressional Stock Watcher”) that monitors her stock trades, and they consistently perform well. She has a better track record trading stocks than Warren Buffett. This raises serious ethical concerns about members of Congress and their families profiting from nonpublic information obtained through their positions. Lawmakers have access to classified briefings, upcoming legislation, and regulatory changes that can directly impact the stock market. Allowing them to trade on that knowledge undermines public trust and creates a two-tier system—one for the politically connected and another for ordinary Americans who play by the rules.

In 2012, Congress passed the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act), which was supposed to prevent lawmakers from using inside information for personal financial gain. However, loopholes and weak enforcement have made the law practically meaningless. Politicians can still have their spouses and family members trade on their behalf, and the penalties for violations are minimal or nonexistent. Even when questionable trades are exposed publicly, they are often dismissed as “coincidence” or “bad optics” rather than prosecuted as crimes.

There should be strict prohibitions preventing any elected official, their spouses, or immediate family members from owning or trading individual stocks while in office. Instead, their investments should be placed in blind trusts, ensuring that decisions are made for the public good, not personal enrichment. Enforcement of insider trading laws must carry real consequences—just as it does for corporate executives or private citizens—because the law should apply equally to everyone. Criminal penalties, loss of office, and permanent bans from public service should be mandatory for any official caught abusing their position for profit.

Only when these reforms are implemented can we begin to restore faith in our government and ensure that public service means serving the people—not profiting from them.

Why Non-Birthright Citizens Should Not Be Allowed to Hold Political Office:

America was built on loyalty, faith, and an unbreakable bond to one flag — the Stars and Stripes. Public office is not just a job; it’s a sacred trust between the people and their government. The men and women we elect hold power over our laws, our resources, and our freedoms. Because of that, their loyalty must be absolute — and it must begin at birth.

This is why only birthright citizens should be allowed to hold political office in the United States.

Loyalty Must Be Undivided

A person born an American owes allegiance to only one nation — the United States of America. That loyalty starts on day one and never wavers.
But those who immigrate and become citizens later in life once swore loyalty to another country. No matter how sincere their intentions, there is always the possibility — or even the perception — of divided loyalty.

Political leaders deal with classified information, foreign policy, and national defense. In these matters, even a hint of uncertainty can put America’s security and sovereignty at risk. Leadership requires total allegiance, not a pledge made after the fact.

Protecting Against Foreign Influence

History is filled with examples of nations compromised from within — not by invasion, but by influence.
When officials have prior ties to foreign nations — whether through family, finances, or ideology — they become easy targets for pressure and manipulation. Even the appearance of foreign influence erodes public trust.

By limiting public office to birthright citizens, we close one of the most dangerous doors to corruption and espionage. It’s not prejudice — it’s protection.

The Founders Understood the Risk

The Founding Fathers foresaw this danger. That’s why the Constitution requires the President to be a natural-born citizen. The reasoning was simple: the person commanding the U.S. military and representing the nation abroad must never have conflicting loyalties.

That same logic should apply to all public offices — from Congress to the Governor’s mansion, from city hall to the state legislature. Every position of power carries influence over American lives. If the presidency requires birthright citizenship, why shouldn’t the rest of government?

Preserving American Sovereignty

Allowing non-birthright citizens to hold office may seem harmless, but it opens the door to slow, silent erosion of national independence. Foreign-born officials may carry the values, politics, and cultural habits of their countries of origin — and those may not always align with American principles.

America’s policies must always serve Americans first.
When those who shape our laws and priorities come from other nations, our sovereignty becomes negotiable. Restricting political office to birthright citizens ensures that America’s destiny is written only by those who have always belonged to it.

Cultural Understanding Matters

Leadership isn’t just about policy — it’s about understanding the people you represent. Birthright citizens grow up immersed in American culture, education, and history. They know what it means to be American, not just by law, but by experience.

That shared foundation matters. It builds empathy, accountability, and trust between leaders and the people they serve. Political leaders should reflect the nation’s core identity — not carry dual histories, dual loyalties, or dual values.

Unity Through Shared Identity

America’s strength has always been unity through shared identity — one nation, under God, indivisible.
When public offices are reserved for those born under the American flag, citizens can trust that their leaders share their roots, their culture, and their undivided allegiance.

Immigrants contribute greatly to this country — as soldiers, entrepreneurs, workers, and neighbors. But the right to govern should be reserved for those whose loyalty has never been in question.

Conclusion

Public office is not a privilege to be distributed — it’s a trust to be earned. The authority to make and enforce laws must remain in the hands of those who have belonged to this nation from birth.

This policy isn’t about division; it’s about preservation — preserving our sovereignty, our unity, and the very essence of what it means to be American.

If we want to keep America strong, free, and secure for generations to come, then our leaders must be bound by one loyalty, one flag, and one birthplace — the United States of America

No Dual Citizenship:

There should be no dual citizenship for any country, including Israel. Israel has committed some of the most heinous attacks against the United States of America. For example, Israel attacked the USS Liberty—a documented historical event.

U.S. Law on Dual Citizenship: The U.S. permits dual citizenship, but members of Congress must be U.S. citizens for at least seven years (House) or nine years (Senate). There is no federal requirement to disclose foreign citizenship, but bills like H.R. 7484 (Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act, 2023–2024) and H.R. 946 (Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act, 2023–2024) have been proposed to mandate disclosure for candidates. Neither bill passed, highlighting the issue’s politicization without confirming any cases of dual citizenship among members of Congress.

Some analysts and public figures, such as Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, and Ted Cruz, appear to align closely with Israel, a nation associated with the Mossad intelligence agency. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, leading some to speculate—without evidence—that he was strategically placed by Israel, particularly following his interview with Tucker Carlson. Although Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro do not hold dual citizenship, as American Jews, they are eligible for Israeli citizenship under Israel’s Law of Return. However, there is no public record or evidence that either has applied for or obtained it, unlike actual dual citizens who must formally immigrate or register. These examples raise questions about where their true allegiance lies—whether with Israel or America first.

This is why dual citizenship should not be allowed.

Total Across All Levels

Senators and Congressmen (Federal + State): Approximately 7,918 total seats (535 federal + 7,383 state), with an estimated 269–319 foreign-born (3–4%).

Key Context: Foreign-born officeholders must be naturalized U.S. citizens and often face scrutiny, but they embody the U.S. ethos as a “nation of immigrants.” For federal details, see Pew’s interactive table; for state details, consult the NCSL’s directory. Thank you, Grok.

This is why dual citizenship should not be allowed.

Mandatory Registration of All Foreign Political Entities, “including Israel”

To ensure transparency, national security, and accountability, all foreign nations, organizations, and political action committees (PACs) operating within the United States shall be required to register as foreign political entities under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) or equivalent federal statutes. This registration requirement will apply uniformly, without exception, to any entity representing or advancing the political, financial, or strategic interests of a foreign government or nation-state.

Currently, Israel and certain affiliated organizations are not subject to the same disclosure and registration standards applied to other foreign governments. This exemption creates a disparity in oversight and public awareness regarding the influence of foreign interests on U.S. policy and governance.

The proposed amendment would close this loophole by mandating that all foreign-affiliated groups—regardless of political, religious, or cultural alignment—disclose their funding sources, lobbying activities, and political affiliations. Enforcement would fall under the Department of Justice, with regular audits and penalties for noncompliance, including revocation of nonprofit status, fines, and public disclosure of violations.

This reform is not directed at any single nation but is designed to uphold fairness, national sovereignty, and the principle that no foreign power or its agents should exert undisclosed influence within the United States political system.Policy Proposal: Merit-Based Immigration Reform
The United States must reform its immigration laws to prioritize merit, national security, and the long-term interests of the American people. Immigration should be a privilege granted to those who demonstrate the ability and commitment to contribute meaningfully to our nation’s growth, stability, and prosperity.
Under this proposed reform, entry into the United States would be based on measurable criteria, including education, professional skills, work history, language proficiency, and adherence to American values and laws. The goal is to ensure that only the best and brightest individuals—innovators, professionals, and contributors to our economy and society—are welcomed to become part of the American fabric.

This merit-based approach would replace the current system, which too often rewards proximity, political favoritism, or chain migration over ability and contribution. Strict background checks, health screenings, and verification processes would be mandatory to protect national security and maintain public safety.
By reforming immigration policy to focus on excellence, integrity, and shared values, America can continue to thrive as a nation that welcomes talent and hard work—not dependency or division.

Ending Incentives for Illegal Immigration:

The United States has long been a nation of laws and opportunity—a place where those who follow the legal immigration process can pursue the American dream. However, when individuals enter or remain in the country illegally, it undermines the integrity of the immigration system, burdens taxpayers, and creates unfair competition for lawful residents and citizens. This proposal seeks to eliminate the incentives that encourage illegal immigration while restoring accountability, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.

1. Ending Access to Public Benefits

No individual residing in the United States illegally should receive taxpayer-funded benefits of any kind. This includes, but is not limited to, food assistance programs, housing subsidies, unemployment benefits, welfare payments, and taxpayer-funded healthcare—including non-emergency and emergency medical services.
When illegal immigrants receive such benefits, it creates a direct incentive for others to cross the border unlawfully in pursuit of financial aid and government support. Meanwhile, millions of American citizens and lawful residents struggle to afford healthcare, housing, and food. This policy prioritizes those who have followed the law and contribute legally to our economy.

2. Employment Enforcement and Penalties

Illegal immigration is largely driven by the promise of employment. To address this, employers must be held strictly accountable. Any business, corporation, or individual found knowingly hiring workers without proper legal authorization shall face severe penalties.
This includes the revocation of business licenses, substantial fines, and criminal prosecution for repeat offenders. Employers should also be required to verify work eligibility through systems like E-Verify, with mandatory audits conducted regularly. By enforcing these measures, we remove one of the strongest incentives for illegal immigration—access to under-the-table jobs that exploit both the worker and the system.

3. Protecting American Workers

Illegal immigration depresses wages and harms American labor. Employers who hire illegal workers often do so to cut costs, bypass safety regulations, and avoid paying fair wages or benefits. As a result, lawful workers—especially those in low-income and middle-class sectors—suffer the most.
By enforcing employment laws and ensuring that every job is filled by someone legally authorized to work, this policy safeguards American workers, strengthens unions, and supports a more stable labor market.

4. Restoring the Rule of Law

A nation cannot thrive when its laws are selectively enforced. Illegal immigration erodes faith in government institutions and creates resentment among lawful residents who see others rewarded for breaking the law. Ending incentives for illegal immigration sends a clear message: the United States welcomes immigrants who respect the legal process, not those who disregard it.
This policy upholds the principle that citizenship and residency are privileges earned through lawful means—not entitlements granted through political pressure or neglect.

5. Redirecting Taxpayer Resources

Every dollar spent on benefits for illegal immigrants is a dollar taken from veterans, senior citizens, students, and families in need. By ensuring that public funds are reserved exclusively for legal citizens and lawful residents, this policy promotes fairness, fiscal responsibility, and national integrity.
Resources saved through enforcement should be redirected toward strengthening border security, streamlining the legal immigration process, and improving support for American families.

By removing incentives for illegal immigration and holding employers and institutions accountable, this proposal reinforces the foundation of lawful governance. It protects American workers, restores public trust, and ensures that taxpayer dollars serve the citizens and legal residents they were intended to benefit.

The United States must remain a beacon of hope—but it must also remain a nation of laws. Only by enforcing those laws consistently and fairly can we preserve both our sovereignty and our compassion.

How to Get Americans to Vote:

The question is simple: How do we get Americans to vote?
The answer is just as simple—incentivize them through tax discounts.

The Simplest Solution

This is the easiest and most effective solution there is. Yet, politicians—especially Democrats—and local media figures like Bob Clark a “local radio host” claim it can’t be done. That’s pure nonsense. The truth is, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

We live in a country where innovation and technology make almost anything possible. If we can transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars through secure mobile apps, there’s no excuse for why we can’t create a secure and verified online voting system.

Who Should Vote

Step One: Only American citizens should be allowed to vote. That must be mandatory. Voting is not a privilege extended to non-citizens or illegal residents—it is a sacred right reserved for those who are part of this nation.

Step Two: No more widespread mail-in ballots—except for active-duty members of the U.S. military serving away from home. Mail-in systems are vulnerable to manipulation, ballot harvesting, and fraud. The integrity of our elections should be just as secure as our financial systems.

Example:
A few years ago, I purchased an item and had to send the full payment. I was able to transfer over $250,000 through my Bank of America mobile app using nothing more than my cellphone. The app verified my identity, confirmed my credentials, and executed the transaction safely and instantly.

So don’t tell me it isn’t possible to have a secure app or website for voting. A modern voting system could allow citizens to log in with verified credentials, confirm identity through photo ID and fingerprint recognition, and use a unique username and password linked to their Social Security number. If banks can secure billions of dollars daily through technology, we can absolutely secure a ballot.

Voting Is a Duty, Not Just a Right

Voting is not just a constitutional right—it is the responsibility of every American citizen. Our freedom, prosperity, and future depend on the voices of the people being heard at the ballot box.

When citizens choose not to vote, they surrender control of their communities, their states, and their nation to others. Every vote is a piece of accountability. It’s a shield against corruption, a defense against tyranny, and a promise to those who fought and sacrificed for this right.

To honor that legacy and protect the future for our children, we must treat voting as both a moral duty and a civic obligation—not an afterthought every four years.

The Incentive to Vote

Encouraging civic participation is essential to the health of our Constitutional Republic. While direct payment for voting would be unethical and unconstitutional, responsible incentives can motivate greater participation.

The best method is a tax rebate system for verified voters.
This would allow citizens who cast a legitimate ballot to receive discounts or rebates on their taxes. These could be modest but meaningful, encouraging responsible engagement in governance. Rebates could apply to:

• Property Taxes

• City Taxes

• State Taxes

• County Taxes

• Municipal Taxes

• Federal Taxes

Even a 2–5% rebate across these categories could have a real impact on middle-class families, retirees, and working Americans.

How It Works

After each election, voter rolls could be securely matched with tax records. Verified voters—those who legally cast a ballot—would automatically qualify for a deduction or rebate applied during the next tax filing cycle.

Local governments could adopt this system first, setting an example for the states and, eventually, the federal level. By linking civic responsibility with financial incentive, the government reinforces the idea that participation has value—just as apathy has consequences.

Why It Matters

Low voter turnout weakens democracy. When only a small percentage of citizens vote, special interests dominate, and the voices of ordinary Americans are lost. By giving people a reason to participate—beyond party loyalty or empty promises—we create a culture of civic accountability.

Rewarding participation doesn’t “buy” votes—it recognizes citizenship. It reminds people that their involvement strengthens the system, protects their community, and helps shape policies that affect their daily lives.

This is not just about politics. It’s about patriotism, fairness, and rebuilding trust in a system that many feel has left them behind.

Conclusion

We can modernize voting, secure elections, and moivate Americans—all at once. The tools already exist. The only thing missing is the will to make it happen.

By incentivizing lawful voting through tax rebates, requiring secure identity verification, and protecting the sanctity of the ballot box, we can restore faith in the democratic process.

Those who say it “can’t be done” simply don’t want it done. But if we truly believe in We the People, then it’s time to give the people both the means and the motivation to take their rightful place in shaping America’s future.

Why Only American-Born Citizens Should Hold Public Office

No one should lead a country if their loyalty might be split. In the United States, public office is not a privilege owed to anyone — it’s a responsibility entrusted to a few. That trust should only extend to American-born citizens. Not because they’re somehow "better," but because their allegiance is singular and unambiguous. When it comes to political leadership, divided loyalties are a risk we cannot afford.

Let’s start with something most Americans agree on: elected officials should act in the best interest of the United States, first and always. But when a political figure is born in another country, raised under a different flag, and possibly still emotionally tied to their place of birth, how can we be sure their loyalty is 100% to America?

Consider Representative Ilhan Omar. She was born in Somalia and became a U.S. citizen as a teenager. Since entering Congress, Omar has been vocal about issues involving U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East. She has repeatedly criticized U.S. support for Israel while supporting positions that mirror those of foreign governments hostile to American interests. Whether you agree with her or not, the deeper issue is this: her background introduces questions about where her true priorities lie. And in politics, perception matters. The moment Americans begin to wonder whether a leader is working for them or for someone else, trust collapses.

This isn’t just a problem of perception. It’s about national security and political integrity. Foreign-born officials may have family, financial interests, or unresolved ties in other nations — even if unintentionally. These personal connections can influence decisions, or worse, be exploited by foreign governments. Intelligence services around the world are trained to look for these kinds of vulnerabilities.

Take Senator Ted Cruz. Though now seen as a champion of conservative American values, Cruz was born in Canada and held Canadian citizenship until 2014. Technically, he was considered a “natural-born citizen” due to his American mother, but the fact remains: he was born on foreign soil. Should someone born outside the U.S., even with a technical claim to citizenship, be trusted with writing our laws or running the country? Many Americans say no — not because of who Cruz is, but because of what that situation represents: a weakening of the standard.

And that standard exists for a reason. The Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen. The Founders, fresh from a revolution against a foreign monarch, understood the dangers of foreign influence. They didn’t want future leaders with divided loyalties. They wanted leaders whose first and only allegiance was to the United States.

Some argue that excluding naturalized citizens from public office is discriminatory. But discrimination implies unfair treatment. In this case, it’s about drawing a necessary line between inclusion and protection. Naturalized citizens can live freely, vote, own property, and build their lives here — and many do, with great success. But holding public office is a different matter. Leadership isn’t a right; it’s a trust. And that trust must rest on a foundation that is beyond doubt.

In a globalized world, dual citizenship and international ties are more common than ever. That only makes this issue more urgent. A candidate could hold two passports, family assets abroad, or deep cultural ties to another nation — and still be legally eligible to run for Congress. That’s not just a loophole; it’s a liability.

No other country would tolerate this kind of risk. Can you imagine China allowing a foreign-born citizen to sit in its national legislature? Or Russia? Or Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Those countries, for all their faults, understand the basic principle: leadership must be built on unquestioned loyalty to the nation.

America shouldn’t be any different. We welcome immigrants — proudly and openly. But the highest levels of government must remain off-limits to those whose loyalties may be split, however unintentionally. The stakes are simply too high.

If we don’t protect the integrity of our leadership now, we invite conflict, confusion, and manipulation later. The best way to ensure America’s leaders are truly working for America — and only America — is to require that they be born here, raised here, and shaped by the very nation they serve. That’s not exclusion. That’s safeguarding democracy.