7th Congressional District GOP candidate: Jeffrey A. Leef

On Jan. 22, Jeffrey Leef appeared before the Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board. We asked him why he’s running for the GOP seat in the 7th Congressional district of Illinois in the March 2018 primary:

I’m Jeffrey Leef, and I’m the republican candidate for the 7th Congressional district of Illinois. Well as far as my political background I haven’t held public office, I did run against Danny Davis in 2016, unsuccessfully. But it was at that time where I was driven to enter the realm of politics for several reasons, one being that in Illinois, specifically in Chicago, that year after year after year opponents, candidates go unopposed which I think is just inherently wrong.

I think that it’s very important for the whole democratic process for us to maintain what was originally established by our founders and to have a second person running and then by doing so, to stand up for the things which I believe. One of the main things which is consistent with my background because I am a physician, is education. I think basically that focusing on education is building the foundation from which everything else arises. Conversely, its the lack of educational support and so on in Chicago, specifically, which has lead to many of the other problem which are inherent in the 7th district.

I would say that, I’m hesitating because there are two main, and as I said first, education I’m very much in favor of overall, pro-choices and personal choice and freedom as much as possible. I have faith in the voters and the parents in the 7th district to have the ability to choose where their children go to school and I think that’s just of utmost importance. It’s through that ability to choose, which then will stimulate competition amongst the schools, to force the underperforming schools to improve or basically be out of the market.

Secondly is healthcare, and being a physician I think I have a strong background in that and knowledge of that, and I think it’s going to be important that the affordability care act (sic), the ACA, at this point its not just as simple as a simple repeal, there are major changes which have to go on that basically both parties have to buy into . This is a bipartisan sin that healthcare became the disaster that it was and similarly its a bipartisan solution of the changes that have to be made for us to go forward. Clearly what has happened up until now is not working.

The Chicago Sun-Times sent the candidates seeking nominations for Congress a list of questions to find out their views on a range of important issues facing the state of Illinois. Jeffrey A. Leef submitted the following answers to our questionnaire:

QUESTION: As a member of the House from Illinois, please explain what your specific cause or causes will be. Please avoid a generic topic or issue in your answer.

ANSWER: There are 3 main issues on which I will focus:

Education – This is the foundation upon which all necessary change will be built. As the media continues to scratch its head wondering why there is raging violence in Chicago, I will first educate them on the history which led to this as well as the corrupt, dishonest, ineffectual politicians whom they have endorsed and empowered for the past 60 years. I will actively support School Choice, Charter Schools, and School Vouchers. As opposed to the leftist ideology which Democrats and certain media outlets espouse, I will fight for the individual’s right of freedom of choice.

Healthcare – By the grace of God, President Obama’s desire to march us towards the disaster of Single-Payer Health has been temporarily thwarted. However, just as disgraceful as the actions of the Obama presidency regarding the web of lies surrounding the so-called “Affordable” Care Act, is the decades of inaction by a craven Republican Party. Republican politicians gladly accepted campaign donations from voters as they bellowed about repealing the ACA with a better plan. For 7 years they sat on their hands, also lied, and had no such plan. The Trump administration was correct in doing away with the individual mandate, but this is only the first of countless changes which need to be made to phase out Obamacare and phase in plans which , again, allow as much individual choice as possible while more effectively protecting those most in need.

Term limits – I will fully support current efforts by Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and others to implement term limits. Career politicians like Danny Davis, beholden to corporations, unions, pharmaceutical companies , while year after year (and supported by left-leaning news organizations) do nothing other than raise money for their next election, must go. If Congress refuses do what is right and impose term limits, then voters need to take matters into their own hands and vote all careerists from both parties out of office.

Jeffrey A. Leef

Running for: 7th Congressional district (Illinois)

Political/civic background: Republican

Occupation: Physician – Interventional Radiologist

Education: University of Illinois-Chicago and The Chicago Medical School

Campaign website: jeffleef.com

QUESTION: Please list three district-specific needs that will be your priorities. This could be a project that is needed in your district, or a rule that needs to be changed, or some federal matter that has been ignored.

ANSWER: First, I would like to see a very specific project through to fruition. The Harlem Ave./Lake St. viaduct is a 105 year old dilapidated structure, in desperate need of renovation. The towns of Oak Park, Forest Park and River Forest initiated a 2009 feasibility study which pointed to the need for this major overhaul citing public safety, access to jobs and fostering economic development. Their request for a $21 million share of the $500 million TIGER grant has thus far been rejected. This project has been lost amongst many of the necessary projects throughout the neediest areas of the 7th District. A combination of having a Congressman who actually does his job and bringing to public attention the fact that Rahm Emanuel, Michael Madigan and their henchmen have been robbing from the poor to give to the rich (TIF money anyone?) might help allow this project see the light of day.

The other two district-specific needs are not coincidentally those I list above. Before the Sun-Times editorial board blindly endorses Danny Davis ,or , should he conveniently retire after the Primary, his Madigan-appointed replacement, they should ask themselves this question: Why, over a span of 60 years, entirely under Democratic control and with Democratic policies, with 2 African-American Mayors, African-American Congressmen, and countless Democratic alderman, have the lives of African-Americans in the West and South sides not improved one iota? Despite billions of dollars spent on public schools and the “war” on poverty, the CPS is amongst the worst in the country, Black unemployment is the worst in the country, the leading cause of death in Black males ages 18-24 is homicide, and the life expectancy of people of the West and South sides is significantly less than that of the Gold Coast limousine liberals that are oh-so-concerned with the welfare of the poor?

I am running for Congress because this sickens me.

QUESTION: If you are running as a Democrat, what is your best idea for getting any initiative you may propose advanced if the House continues to be controlled by the GOP after the 2018 elections?

ANSWER: From here on out, I will rephrase your questions demonstrating the intent with which they were meant. I will also pose the question as would an impartial body.

TRANSLATION OF YOUR QUESTION: “ If you are running as a Democrat, how can you get your better ideas past the evil Republicans?”

THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION: “As a candidate for Congress, what do you feel is the best way to gain bipartisan support of a bill in which you are trying to pass? Would you require other means if the opposing party controlled the House?

I would strive to use the same methods that Presidents, prior to President Obama, used to get bills passed that were important to them and the country. It was no walk in the park for President Reagan to deal with Tip O’Neill nor for President Clinton to knock heads with Newt Gingrich. These Presidents saw no less resistance from their opponents than did President Obama, however, they crossed the aisle, explained their views, made deals, treated their opponents with respect, and successfully passed many of their most important and historic bills

Unfortunately, arrogance and governing by fiat made popular by President Obama is the rule of the day. Our Congressmen should take it upon themselves to reverse , not exacerbate, this self-absorbed, self-righteous and embarrassingly obnoxious behavior. I plan on doing just that.

TOPIC: President Donald Trump

QUESTION: What do you make of President Trump?

ANSWER: Donald Trump was elected after garnering the necessary number of electoral votes and by receiving the votes cast by over 60 million Americans in the greatest democracy on earth. The groundwork for his election by the people was laid by 8 years of Obama failing policies and executive decisions, by arguably the worst and most dishonest candidate in the history of American politics (Hillary Clinton), and a thoroughly incompetent and feckless GOP who couldn’t govern themselves out of a paper bag.

I believe President Trump can be boorish, infantile and remarkably thin-skinned for someone of his stature; and I also think that President Trump is delivering on his promises (unlike his recent predecessors of both parties), and will achieve more than the past 3 presidents put together.

QUESTION: Which three actions by the Trump administration do you support the most? Which three do you oppose the most?

ANSWER: The pros and cons list are too enormous to limit to 3. That said, the importance of the successes far outweigh the embarrassment of the failures.

Pros:

Justice Gorsuch

Allowing the military to defeat ISIS

Excellent growth and unemployment statistics

Massive cuts in regulations

Decertifying the Iran Deal

North Korean sanctions

Tax reform

Withdrawal from Paris Accords

The eventual travel ban

Supporting the police

Cons:

The horrible response to Charlottesville

Withdrawal from the TPP

Obamacare repeal/replace failure

Steve Bannon

Idiotic tweets

Publically attacking his own staffers

Endorsing Roy Moore

Transgender ban in the military (blocked in federal court).

QUESTION: What is your view of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian tampering in the 2016 election, including possible collusion by the Trump campaign. Does Mueller have your support?

ANSWER: I believe the information that Congress has uncovered concerning the alleged Russian collusion raises a number of serious questions about whether Mr. Mueller is conducting an apolitical investigation.

I will await the results of the review, conducted by The Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, of the actions of the DOJ and FBI during last year’s election before offering further opinion.

TOPIC: Terrorism

QUESTION: What should Congress do to reduce the threat of terrorism at home, either from ISIS or from others?

ANSWER: The main priority is prevention, achieved both home and abroad.

Presently, we are waging a war against global terrorism; a war which will never end. It will never end because twisted Islamic jihadist ideology will always exist and rear its ugly head under a different name when its predecessor is destroyed.

We can no longer allow the creation of vacuums in which evil will fill. This was the case, most recently, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. The failure of the Obama administration to renegotiate/demand a new SOFA agreement allowing sufficient number of US troops to remain in Iraq, led to the expansion of ISIS.

Therefore, like it or not, we are now and always must be, the world’s policeman.

With proper military leadership and allowing these leaders to do their job, they essentially have destroyed ISIS. That said, if allowed to do so, the next version of ISIS will take its place or its remnants will metastasize to other politically fragile areas in the world. The importance of continued American presence cannot be stressed enough.

Further, it is in our best interest to continue to fully support the only true democracy and ally that we have in the Middle East – Israel.

Next, we must accept the fact that this is a different world than at the turn of the 20^th century, when immigrants came to America solely seeking opportunity and wishing to assimilate into American culture. Therefore, our security measures and criteria to enter the country must change accordingly.

President Trump’s error was not that he implemented an immigration ban on seven countries which are hotbeds for jihadist terrorists (something that past presidents have done), but rather to referring to it as a “Muslim ban”. His failure to distinguish between the over 1 billion peaceful Muslims and the evil Islamic jihadists, brought outrage and unnecessary political obstruction.

We have seen the devastating effects of the weak immigration policies of the UK, France, Italy and Germany. Until we are able to develop adequate vetting procedures, we must restrict unfettered access to the United States; especially from countries whose stated goal is to destroy America and Israel.

The next necessary step is to do what is necessary to secure our borders. The Trump administration has already made great strides in doing so by bolstering border patrols and, again, allowing those in charge to do their jobs. Illegal immigration has decreased 60% during the current administration.

Frankly, I don’t know if a physical wall is the most efficient and cost-effective way to secure our borders. Its nearly impossible to get honest and accurate answers to many of my questions:

Cost

Extent of covered versus uncovered borders

Environmental impact

On the subject of “the wall”, the jury is out.

Lastly, we must continue to strive to improve the communication between the governmental agencies whose goal is to protect us. Lack of doing so led to the tragedy of 9/11.

TOPIC: Guns and violence

QUESTION: What is the single most important action Congress can take to curb gun violence in the United States?

ANSWER: First of all, gun control does not curb gun violence. Anyone who lives in Chicago, with the strictest gun laws and amongst the highest rates of homicide by handguns, knows this.

That said, I strongly support a unified, federal background check for gun sales. I support this just as strongly as I support the Second Amendment. While it is true that our society is vastly different from when our founders first wrote the Constitution, what has not changed is the unique and precious right we as Americans have to maintain our personal freedoms. The goal is to reach an acceptable balance between the federal and state government’s role to protect its citizens while not infringing upon our constitutional rights. To achieve this, our founders established the three equal branches of government. I cannot improve upon this system of checks and balances. We clearly see throughout our history, that when a President attempts to game this system, the voters elect people who will reverse those attempts.

I further believe that these freedoms, which we are so fortunate to have, can be abused. This is why the role of government is to act as a referee. If elected officials acted as they should and were true representatives of their constituents, reasonable bipartisan bills would be established which would prevent stockpiling of weapons and ammunition (not unlike the case with controlled pharmaceuticals).

Another important issue to me is the safety of our children. I believe that “Smart Gun” technology is the answer. All technical criticisms of the product would be corrected by the same means that all the incredible advancements we use today have reached us – through competition. The main impediment to implementation is two-fold: the gun lobby (NRA) and the politicians that are beholden to them.

This, of course, leads us to the largest can of worms: career politicians.

QUESTION: Do you favor a law banning the sale and use of “bump stocks” that increase the firing speed of semi-automatic weapons? Why? Do you favor any further legal limits on guns of any kind? Or, conversely, what gun restrictions should be done away with?

ANSWER: I am in favor of banning Bump Stocks.

The rest I answer above.

TOPIC: America’s growing wealth gap

QUESTION: As an editorial board, our core criticism of the tax overhaul legislation supported by the Republican majorities in the House and Senate is that it lowers taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans at a time of historic inequalities of wealth and income in the United States. We believe in free markets, but it does not look to us like the “silent hand” of the market is functioning properly, rewarding merit fairly. We are troubled that the top 1 percent of Americans own 38.6 percent of the nation’s wealth and the bottom 90 percent own just 22.8 percent of the wealth. Tell us how we are right or wrong about this. Does the growing income and wealth gap trouble you?

ANSWER: I would love to just answer by saying that your statements are typical leftist agitprop, void of fact and knowledge of history, and typical of the mainstream media who are the useful fools of the Democrats’ socialist-lite agenda …….

But that would be mean-spirited.

Instead, I will begin in more eloquent fashion with four quotes:

“The society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” – Milton Friedman

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” -Margaret Thatcher

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

Books can and have been written on this subject so I will limit my discussion to several facts.

There is no other economic model, in the history of the world, that has done more to relieve the devastations of grinding poverty than Capitalism. The exact opposite has been seen with Socialism as well as from its parents, Communism and Fascism.

After Democrats launched their “War on Poverty”, and after spending trillions of dollars to do so, the lives of the poor have not improved in the least by any measurable criteria.

There are literally hundreds examples of the positive effects of what Adam Smith described in his masterpiece, “The Wealth of Nations” as “the INVISIBLE (not silent) hand”. The “invisible hand” refers to the unintended social benefits of actions of self-interest by others. For example, of all the amazing inventions that have changed the world, can you name one which was ordered by the government? On the large scale you have Bill Gates. He is one of the inventors of the personal computer. As a result, he is a billionaire ( one of the evil .01%) . The world not only directly benefited beyond measure but indirectly, as Gates used his wealth in unprecedented charitable ways (eradicating polio). On the small scale, I buy an Armand’s Pizza because I’m hungry and I love Armand’s Pizza. The result is, because of mine and others own self-interest, Armand’s is a successful small business and employs more and more employees as their success increases. The Editorial Board states that it “believes in” a free market, but it doesn’t. A free market doesn’t include telling people how to spend the money they’ve earned or spending other people’s money for them. Further, the Editorial Board is “troubled” about the percentage of wealth earned by the “1%”, yet somehow are not concerned that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. And who is the Editorial Board, or anyone else for that matter, to be placed in charge of determining what is the “fair” reward for merit? The views that the Board less than subtly expresses reek of the very principles of socialism if not communism. Perhaps you should pose this question to the people of Venezuela.

Lastly, can one objectively assess the economic status of Illinois and , more specifically, the standard of living of the people of the West and South sides of Chicago, and honestly say that this disaster is the result of what Democrats love to bray is the Republican desire to cater to the rich and CEO’S? Illinois and most importantly Chicago, have been controlled by Democrats for close to 100 years. The citizens of the 7th district have been the recipients of Democratic policies for decades and have been rewarded with poor healthcare, the worst schools, crowded and segregated living conditions, nation-leading unemployment, lack of opportunities and raging violence. And, no; this is not peculiar to Chicago. It is exactly the same in every Democratic-controlled large metropolitan city – Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, New York, Los Angeles and so on.

I would be more than happy to elaborate in person or with an opponent in a debate forum.

TOPIC: International Affairs

QUESTION: Do you support the Trump administration’s decision to move the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?

ANSWER: I 100% support the Trump Administration’s decision to place our embassy in Jerusalem.

I am especially secure in my stance as it is shared by President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, and President Barack Obama.

When one adds the fact that west Jerusalem is not up for debate as belonging to Israel, there is absolutely no reason to not follow through on the promises of these past presidents.

Fortunately, this president has the courage to support the only true Democracy in the Middle East and our one true ally in the region.

To quote a self-proclaimed great statesman:

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” –Then Senator Barack Obama, from a 2008 campaign speech.

QUESTION: How will this help or hinder efforts to secure a lasting peace between Israel and its Middle East neighbors?

ANSWER: This move will neither help nor hinder efforts to secure lasting peace between Israel and some of its Middle East neighbors.

Why?

Because it is a fool’s errand to believe that this centuries old conflict will ever be resolved.

This “conflict” can be reduced to very simple terms: One side wants the other side dead.

Period.

If the Palestinians and the Iranians laid down their arms, there would be peace that very day.

If Israel laid down its arms, every last Israeli would be murdered.

It’s very simple really.

Therefore, why shouldn’t Israel be allowed to choose the capital of their country; a country that was formally established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948?

It should go without saying that every country has the right to place their embassy wherever it wants.

QUESTION: Is military action by the United States a plausible response to the nuclear weapons threat posed by North Korea? How might a U.S. military response play out for South Korea, Japan and China? What alternative do you support?

ANSWER: Currently, we are faced with the same horrible dilemma we encountered at the start of the Korean War. The problem is not the insane little despot but rather the two superpowers that support him – Russia and China.

North Korea is essentially a China satellite. Not unlike in 1953, when the armistice was signed to end the Korean War, China will never allow a unified Korea.

A unified Korea releases China’s stranglehold on the country and places a free society far too close to mainland China.

History indisputably shows that communist regimes will expand whenever and however they can. Currently we see this phenomenon as we idly watched China expand its unlawful control of the South China Sea.

China continues, despite its denials to our President and State Department, to supply North Korea with oil, supplies, weaponry and technology.

An additional and no less significant major problem is the South Korean leadership and its citizenry.

The President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, is a leftist himself. He, initially, actively rejected U.S. efforts to bolster his countries defenses. Jae-in was critical of the U.S move to place its anti-missile THAAD system (a decision made by his predecessor) in his country.

Also, amongst those most opposed were the people of Seongju County, southeast of Seoul.

The problem, in my opinion, lies in the naivete of the South Korean people, who believe that Kim Jong-Un is nothing more than a blowhard and the North Korean people are uneducated farmers incapable of fighting against their civilized and evolved society.

Kim Jong-Un is a blowhard with the military capability of killing millions of people.

So, the question is:

How do we maintain our safety without initiating a war with 2 super powers and denying the democratic choices of the people of South Korea?

I believe that the most effective course is a 4-pronged approach:

1. Implement all necessary means to strain the economies of China and Russia, and if necessary, South Korea. In addition to economic sanctions…..
2. Significantly increase our military capabilities and weaponry. We must be prepared to have the CAPABILITY to fight a 3-front war.
3. Place a version of Israel’s Iron Dome defense system in South Korea, Guam and Japan.
4. Be prepared to destroy North Korea if they launch an attack on a US territory

When Reagan walked out on Gorbachev in Reykjavik because of Gorbachev’s insistence that the US abandon its Strategic Defense initiative, the world trembled.

Reagan stood his ground and, not because of moral awakening, but rather Gorbachev’s realization that the crumbling Russian economy could not survive an arms race with the US, led to the end of the Cold War.

Instead of repeating the mistakes of our past, revisit our successes, and use these means to achieve the same results.

TOPIC: Immigration

QUESTION: The Supreme Court has ruled that the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban on eight countries with predominantly Muslim populations can go into effect while legal challenges against the ban continue. What is your position on this travel ban?

ANSWER: I have adequately answered this question, above.

QUESTION: Has the United States in the last decade been accepting too many immigrants, and does this pose a threat to the American way of life?

ANSWER: Leftist Provocateurs! Left-wing agitprop! More mindless liberal gibberish spurting forth from the Democratic echo chamber! Sorry.

Time for a quote: “There you go again.” – Ronald Reagan

Is it too much to ask that laws currently on the books, that have been established via the marvels of our three equal branches of government be upheld?

Is it too much to ask that people who have entered the country illegally not receive the same benefits as U.S. citizens?

Is it too much to ask that if illegal immigrants commit a felony (not a traffic ticket. A felony.), they be reported to ICE?

Was not full amnesty already granted to over 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986, with the results having opposite the intended effect, i.e. 4 times the number of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. with associated unchecked chain migration?

Has anyone (other than accusations from the echo chamber) suggested that illegal immigrants or their children be rounded up like animals in a manner similar to the way FDR and his Democratic colleagues chose to treat Japanese-Americans?

Was there ANY percentage of those one million Jews that were begging FDR for visas so as to escape their ultimate deaths in the Holocaust in fact coming to the United States with the intention of murdering as many Americans as possible?

(You see, according to the Pew Research Center , there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. Estimates are that only 7% are radical jihadists. Therefore, there are only 126 MILLION admitted radical jihadists in the world.) So, if we say that over 1.7 billion Muslims are peaceful, are we being xenophobic, anti-Muslim racists when we say we want to establish as strong a vetting process as legally possible to prevent the 126 million from entering the country they wish to destroy? And where, statistically, would the majority of these people reside?

But….There I go again.

QUESTION: Should the “wall” between the United States and Mexico be built? What might it accomplish?

ANSWER: I have adequately answered this question, above.

TOPIC: Affordable Care Act

QUESTION: The tax reform plan created by Republican majorities in the House and Senate would eliminate the Obamacare “individual mandate” that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine. Does this threaten the viability of the Affordable Care Act? What more on this, if anything, should be done?

ANSWER: Eliminating the individual mandate of Obamacare is the first step of a plan that Republicans were too craven and unprincipled to formulate prior to the Trump presidency.

I can only hope that President Trump is demanding more from his so-called Republican leadership as we move forward on a plan, that I feel , has been outlined well and will work.

I will start with an excerpt from Scott W. Atlas’chapter on transformational healthcare reform, from the “Blueprint for America “edited by George Shultz.:

“America’s national health expenditures now total over $3.1 trillion per year, or more than 17.4% of the GDP, and are projected to reach 19.6% of the GDP by 2024.

Medicaid has expanded to cover over 70 million people at a cost of $500 billion per year.

Medicare spends over $260 billion annually on hospital benefits alone and $615 billion in total for 52 million enrollees.

Workers paying taxes for the program will decline to 2.3 per beneficiary by 2030, half of the number at Medicare’s inception…

Medicare’s hospitalization insurance trust fund will face depletion in 2030.

Barring changes, by 2049, federal expenditures for health care and Social Security are projected to consume all federal revenues, eliminating capacity for national defense, interest on the debt, or any other domestic program.”

While these numbers are certainly frightening, we simply cannot allow this to occur. We need to capture that mystical unicorn called “bipartisan courage” in creating a plan, likely requiring 10 years to fully implement, to stem the tide of this pending disaster.

Republicans displayed no such courage as they sat on their hands for 8 years, lied to voters saying that they had a better plan and would replace the ACA.

While their behavior was both inept and dishonest, we can correct that. We cannot correct the horror story which is known as Single Payer Healthcare or Medicare-For-All, should it be forced upon us.

To do this, we must phase out the ACA and phase in a fiscally responsible, transparent plan, which offers the highest level of healthcare to the greatest number of people, with the greatest number of plans from which to choose.

This plan would be built on the foundation of a concept which may perhaps be our greatest gift as Americans: The Freedom to Choose.

Slowly convert Medicare into a true insurance program, covering catastrophic illness.

Simultaneously create and expand low cost private insurance plans, generated by the same market competition that have brought us unparalleled advancements in countless products which also improve our daily lives.

Establish and make readily available Universal Healthcare accounts, allowing individuals to save tax-free money for uncovered expenses.

Reform the politically appointed, so-called Independent Advisory Board whose specific goal is to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. This board has resulted in a rapidly increasing number of physicians who no longer take Medicare patients.

Start the slow and arduous journey of giving Medicaid patients the ability to drop their substandard coverage and care and obtain affordable private plans.

Create a voucher system in which the neediest can purchase plans which gives them access to the same type of medical care available to the more fortunate.

TOPIC: Your opponent

QUESTION: What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?

ANSWER: I know absolutely nothing about Mr. Craig Cameron, my opponent in the Republican Primary.

I know plenty about Congressman Danny Davis and have spoken at length about his history. The 7th Congressional District stands as a monument to his beliefs and failures.

I tried to reach a representative of the Tamil Tigers for comment on Mr. Davis, but they were unavailable. Perhaps these “freedom fighters”(by which Congressman Davis referred to them) were busy trying to create an invention that could surpass their last contribution to our society – the suicide vest.