2022 Campaign Policy Positions Overview

[SUBJECT HEADINGS as written by "IVoterGuide" are bolded and underlined,
QUESTIONS as written by "ivoterguide" are bolded but not underlined,
SUMMARY ANSWERs are the generic overview answer Mr. Sivalingam selected to the question and are underlined but not bolded,
NARRATIVE ANSWERs give Mr. Sivalingam's in depth explanation to the generic answer above it, and are neither underlined nor bolded]  

Right to Life

1: Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments (including Title X grants). Agree
I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The Federal Government should leave legislation of abortion to the sovereign States. The Federal Government should Not provide funds to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

2: I support 'aid in dying' laws which legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The Federal Government should leave legislation of assisted suicide and euthanasia to the sovereign States. The Federal Government should Not provide funds for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

3: Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
The Federal Government should stay out of abortion entirely, this will assist with domestic tranquility, as well as political and market competition between the States. I hold there is a horizontal (i.e. between branches of government) and vertical separation of powers (i.e. between the Federal and State governments), and I will support Federal legislation which empowers, or honors the powers of, the sovereign States to legislate if/as they see fit on the issue of abortion so long as it does not rely on Federal funds.
1: Redistribution of income is needed to lessen the gap between the wealthy and working classes.
I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The States secure the Individual Rights of Individuals, and the Federal Government secures the Sovereignty of the several States (as well as the Unity and Independence of the U.S.). The Federal Government has no business redistributing wealth, and is restrained from doing so by the Fifth Amendment "just compensation" clause.
2: The government should cut spending in order to reduce the national debt.
Strongly Agree
Let's also consider commodity based currencies (commodities such as precious metals, or perhaps the most precious commodity common to all people, the commodity of Time) and empowering the States to legislate the value of money as

they once did. We also need to reconsider the existence of the Federal Reserve. There may be much better market competition in the United States if, free from the Federal Reserve monopoly, States were given the power to participate in the valuing of money.
3: What changes, if any, should be made to the tax code?
The XVI Amendment should be repealed. The Federal Government should have no power to tax income. The States are represented in the Federal Legislature, and it is the States who should be taxed by the Federal Government, not the Citizens of the States. The States can then legislate taxation as they see fit. However, even the States may be limited in the type of taxation they can implement because of the Constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto Laws under Article 1 Sections 9 and 10.

Religious Liberty
1: Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The sovereign States secure Individual Rights, and the Federal Government secures the sovereignty of the States (as well as the Unity and Independence of the U.S.) All of our liberties are at risk, and the best way to protect them is to allow the sovereign States to define and secure these liberties; as it is their purpose.
2: Individuals and businesses should be required to provide services even if it would violate their moral and/or religious beliefs.
This is primarily a State issue, let the States deliberate and legislate on this issue but hold the States accountable for equal application of their laws within their jurisdiction. However, with regards to those businesses providing services for the Federal Government, under the First Amendment while acting on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the Federal Government they have no ability to deny services to other people based on their personal moral or religious discretion.
3: What should be the relationship between the church and the state? 

First, let's define "state" as it is usually understood within the context of this question; "state" refers to Government. The First Amendment clearly establishes a restraint, a separation of church and state, on the Federal Government. As a Republican form of Government, guaranteed in Article 4 Section 4, is premised on popular sovereignty (i.e. the domiciled natural persons in a territory make up the "State"); there must also therefore be a separation of Church and state to protect popular sovereignty. However, ultimately, the level of influence that religion, or any other epistemology, has on a specific State is the prerogative of the people domiciled in said State; the domiciled populace of a State is collectively the body politic, i.e. the Sovereign. Read below for a further analysis. Religion, churches, and their members will always have influence in people's lives and politics (as they should); however, the separation between church and state ensures that we have popular sovereignty that is driven by the free will and relationships of the people between themselves. The conversation about the relationship between church and state comes down to a question of how we know what is true. A method for knowing what is true is called an epistemology. Some use scriptures as epistemology. Some use intuition as epistemology. Some rely on prayer as epistemology. Some rely on their family for epistemology. During the Covid-19 scenario, we have seen many people use scientific consensus (or dogma) as epistemology. When the epistemology circumvents the relationship and deliberation between individual natural persons, and when the conclusions of an epistemology are assumed to be true, we have a de facto religion. We do not want any one religion, de jure or de facto, running a civil society based on free will and relationships; because if we do, then we are actually imposing reified epistemological conclusions as to what is true without free will and relationships, and then we no longer have popular sovereignty. Without free will, there is no sovereignty. Without free will the people are not in charge, the reified epistemological conclusions, and the authorities that make them, are in charge. Then we have a theocracy. Likewise, if a civil society based on popular sovereignty disregards an individual's religious Rights that protect integral elements of their religious practices, and imposes the States conclusions directly on individuals and families, especially when they are in contrast to long standing common law and traditions (e.g. experimental vaccine mandates, experimental mask mandates, generalization of gender questioning), then we may have ochlocracy (i.e. mob rule).


1: Under what circumstances (if any) should a government, school, or employer be allowed to require vaccinations?
I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. I hold that the Right to bodily integrity is implicit in the Second Amendment as its' original premise; and other Rights enumerated within the U.S. Constitution also prohibit mandated vaccinations, and other mandated body alterations. Therefore, the Federal Government has no authority to impose, nor to cause others to impose, a vaccine on an individual. Specifically with regards to the Covid-19 vaccines (and other countermeasures), I hold that the Nuremberg Code possesses the force of law from the treaties that legitimated the Nuremberg Trials, and therefore all claims that people, especially vulnerable populations, were/are coerced or compelled to take the Covid-19 vaccine must be investigated and prosecuted as violations of the Nuremberg Code. I will sponsor such legislation. However, I do not support the death penalty, because a government with the power to take the life of its citizens is a government that can, and likely will, destroy its people. Consent with regards to medical procedures should be: 1) Informed, 2) Freely Given, 3) Unambiguous, 4) Specific, 5) Explicit, and 6) Revocable; and where it pertains to the Federal

Government, I would sponsor legislation to that effect. Lastly, with regards to how the vaccine mandate is affecting our military, we are on the verge of losing 10% of our military because they are being forced to leave the service to avoid a mandated experimental vaccine. At a time when we need to maintain a strong military in the face of a growing threat from China, causing a forced reduction in our military personnel is figuratively like someone inside our castle lowering the drawbridge. The military should Not be forced to take experimental, and clearly harmful, injections. I will sponsor legislation to reinstate, or otherwise make whole, the military personnel who have lost their positions due to the Covid-19 vaccine mandates.

2: What most closely matches your view on healthcare: A) Healthcare for all should be guaranteed and funded by the government with no private healthcare option. (includes "universal healthcare," "medicare for all," etc.) B) Healthcare insurance funded by the government should be available for all who want it, along with private healthcare options. C) Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer- funded programs are necessary. D)Tax-payer funded health care should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be de- funded.

I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The Federal Government should not be involved in health care at all, whatsoever. Federal Tax- payer funded health care should be abolished in all forms. I derive my position based on the absolute over reach of power taken by the Federal Government and its private partners with regards to the Covid-19 scenario; it amounted to nothing less than societal abuse and destruction of our progeny, our sovereignty, our independence, and the economy. The FDA, CDC, and all other Federal agencies should be immediately investigated for the parts they played in the Covid-19 scenario, and the harm they have caused our children and vulnerable populations. The Covid-19 Vaccines have proven dangerous and injurious, and should be discontinued; I will sponsor legislation to this effect. I will sponsor legislation for all vaccine and pharmaceutical developers and manufacturers doing business with the Federal Government to be liable for their products.

National Security

1: With regard to America's foreign policy, which view most closely resembles yours: A) The United States should intervene whenever freedom is threatened. B) The United States should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny. C) The United States has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger. D) The United States should stay out of foreign conflicts completely.
I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The United States has become too involved in others' policies and affairs, and should remain focused on issues regarding our own Unity and Independence and the sovereignty of our several States. Domestically, the Federal Government needs to step aside and allow the several sovereign States to define, deliberate, and secure the natural Rights of their Citizens. This will foster economic and political pluralism which will foster greater production, and consequently stronger currency; in turn this will strengthen our International standing. Focusing on our founding ideology of Individual Rights, State Sovereignty, U.S. Unity and Independence will once again bring American back into its global leadership position which will increase diplomatic and trade power. As the Declaration of Independence states "...as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends."
2: I support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement to pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, remove the separation barrier in the West Bank, allow full equality for Arab- Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Strongly Disagree
3: The Chinese Communist Party poses serious military, cyber security, intellectual property, and global economic threats to the United States. Strongly Agree
It is my judgement based on what I observe that the Chinese Communist Party is presently at war, in an undeclared fashion, with the United States. It is an asymmetrical or unconventional warfare, but warfare nonetheless. While the two are associated through BRICS; China, not Russia, is the greatest threat to the free world. Now: No land sales to Chinese companies and nationals, No Strategic Petroleum Reserves to China, Secure the Southern border, aggressively stop CCP colonialism.
4: What should the United States do to help eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism?
First, we need to stop the Green New Deal nonsense which is creating a greater rift between us and middle eastern countries. Second, we need to have positive trade and diplomacy with countries who have large Islamic populations. Third, we need to stop torturing individuals who are bing held on terrorism. Fourth, we must maintain a strong and supportive relationship with Israel; and defend the Right of Israel to exist as a sovereign and independent State. Fifth, when and if we are attacked, we must then respond firmly with appropriately limited and specific corrective operations. Sixth, we must end the Patriot Act, and similar fear based liberty infringing laws, because they internalize the terror that the terrorists wanted to create, and feed into the cycle of terror. Seventh, we must maintain the strongest, best trained, defensive military in the world (defending individual Rights, State Sovereignty, and the continued Unity and Independence of the United States). Eighth, we must enforce current immigration laws, and firmly secure All of our borders with well compensated human personnel. Nine, we must investigate the overlooked and probable connection between the Chinese Communist Party and funding and training of terrorists.


1: The U.S. should do more to physically secure the southern border. 

Strongly Agree
Absolutely, secure all borders! The Federal Government has the obligation to prevent invasion (e.g. no organized crime nor trafficking). Border Security, and other border securing agencies, should be well staffed, well trained, and well compensated. Honoring individual free will, State sovereignty, and our U.S. Independence are all the same issue at different levels of society! Immigration should require sponsorship by a State, and the requirement to domicile within the sponsoring State.

2: State and federal funds shall be denied to any public or private entity, such as a sanctuary city, that is not in compliance with immigration laws.

I am currently running for U.S. Senate, and so I answer from the perspective of my position with regards to the Federal Government only at this time. The Federal Government should deny funds to entities not in compliance with immigration laws. Immigration should require sponsorship by a State, and the requirement to domicile within the sponsoring State.

3: Who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and under what circumstances?
Immigration should require sponsorship by a State, and the requirement to domicile within the sponsoring State for a minimum of 12 years prior to potential naturalization; this way the sponsoring State receives the full cost or benefit of the sponsored immigrant. Immigrants should be required to swear their support to the founding ideology of the United States and her several sovereign States which is: Individual Rights, State Sovereignty, and perpetual U.S. Unity and Independence. If an immigrant violates a law, there should be an option on both the part of the Federal Government or the sponsoring State to remove the immigrant from the country with or without a Right to return, depending on the severity of the infringement. There should be zero tolerance for human trafficking, drug trafficking, and organized crime.


1: Sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes in non-discrimination laws.
States should legislate on these issues; decentralizing this issue will lead to resolution through relationships and free-will. However, the Federal Government should treat people equally regardless of gender or sexual orientation. However, like Religions, the Federal Government should not generalize minority lifestyle nuances and impose them on the entire population as if others should personally consider or conform. I would consider a Federal relocation assistance bill for interstate moves.

2: I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.

I strongly disagree with CRT. However, there are undeniable bigotries throughout our country. I will define bigotry here, as an intolerance, conscious or subconscious, that dismisses or seeks to dismiss the humanity of targeted individuals and groups on an ostensibly reasonable basis. The solution to these bigotries is to decentralize power and encourage relationships and a society of free will; as well as to continue to guarantee the States a Republican form of government under Art 4 Sec 4.
3: Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a religiously observant Saivite Hindu. I am a unordained (i.e. lay) Hindu householder (i.e. non-monastic) minister.

Elections and Voting
1: People should be able to vote without photo identification.
Under Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution the Federal Government must guarantee the States a Republican form of government. This includes making sure that only living Citizens vote, that they only vote in the jurisdiction they are domiciled in, that they vote in person, and that they only vote once. The easiest way to make sure this happens is to let the States legislate on this matter, and then audit the States for compliance from time to time.
2: What laws would you propose to change present voting practices?

Right now the biggest election integrity legislation that needs to be sponsored, by me, is legislation to thoroughly audit and immediately and lawfully remedy discrepancies from the 2020 elections. Secondarily, the Federal Government should prohibit the use of mail-in ballots for anyone other than absentees in Federal elections. Thirdly, the Federal Government should require mechanical voting machines for Federal elections.

Race Relations

1: Reparations should be given to people on the basis of race. 

Strongly Disagree
Reparations would be an Ex Post Facto Law, and are clearly unconstitutional.

2: Is racism a threat to domestic security in the United States? Why or why not?
I would like to hear a clear and specific definition of "domestic security", because I feel that variations on the terms "health", "safety", and "security" are thrown around to create emotional reactions. Here I will define "domestic security", and preserving Individual Rights, State sovereignty, and perpetual U.S. and Independence. While there is racism among some individuals, my answer is No, racism is not threatening these things; but there are clearly forces within the U.S. that would like to foment division based on race to either destroy the Unity of the U.S. or to destroy Individual Rights and State Sovereignty.

Energy & Environment

1: I support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources.
Perspectives on climate and the environment are built on a gravitational cosmological model of the universe, but an Electric cosmological (i.e. the Electric Universe) model better fits the scientific data. I support the power of the States to legislate with regards to activities that cause pollutions; energy companies (fracking, windmills, etc) should Not have Federal liability immunity for damage to people and property, otherwise the Federal Government should not interfere.

2: Which comes closest to your view? A) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. B) Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.
Proposed stricter environmental laws and regulations are premised on incomplete information as they neglect input from the well developed Electric Universe cosmological theory, thereby the issues (if any) are not even framed properly. Certainly proposed environmental laws and regulations will cost too many jobs and destroy the economy including the food chain; it fact they already are.

Criminal Justice

1: Police officers should be personally immune from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy (qualified immunity) while on duty.

Federal Law enforcement should not have qualified immunity when dealing with Citizens who are not organized crime, however, when dealing with foreign nationals, stateless people, or citizens who are members of organized crime, they should have qualified immunity. With regards to State and local Police, the States can legislate on those matters; or not, as they see fit.

2: I support redirecting funds from police departments to mental health and community programs.

I support redirecting Some Federal funds from some Federal Law Enforcement departments to mental health and community programs, with a focus on supporting methods, other than pharmaceuticals, to help people resolve depression, and anxiety. The Federal Government has, and should have, No power over State, County, and local police and sheriffs; States, Counties, and Municipalities can and should direct their funds as they see fit. I oppose the Federalization of all law enforcement.

2nd Amendment

1: What restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety?
The Federal Government should not place any restrictions on gun ownership, but the Federal Government should also respect the power of the several sovereign States to legislate on the issue, or not, if/ as they see fit.

2: Victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers.
Strongly Disagree
IF there is any third party liability to be had, it may be with the Big agricultural businesses using GMOs and certain pesticides, and Big Pharmaceutical companies pushing synthetic and nano based drugs and products (e.g. certain anti- depressants and anti-anxiety medications) and harmful vaccines, and Big Communications companies pushing 5G, all of which may be having unrecorded negative impacts on mental-emotional development and causing biochemical imbalances that may be leading to violence.