Analysis of GOOOH Questionaire

8/8/2019 Analysis of GOOOH Questionaire

1/32


2/32

delivered by a majority of the segment of society that elected them tooffice. The DesPro wins their office by catering to the baser nature of their

constituents. They promise an ever larger slice of the public pie. They willvilify their target victims by identifying them as greedy, rich, uncaring,evil . . . you name it. Their constituents cheer, Yeah man! Go get em.

When the DesPro arrives in Washington, any notion that constitutional law is

a proper restraint on their design is the furthest thing from their minds.The constitution is a demonstrated recipe for national success crafted for us

by our founding fathers. Yet DesPros view the constitution as a constraintupon their mandate. Therefore, they enlist so-called constitutional lawyers

to slice, dice, obfuscate, and infer all manner of violations of liberty from

a mere twenty or so clearly written pages signed into first law inPhiladelphia in 1787.

DesPros are so dependent upon public ignorance of the law that they craftschool systems more interested in training soldiers to fight artificial

crisis than upon production of independently self-sufficient citizens. Infact, the DesPro strives for the broadest public dependence upon the largess

of government. Ive suggested that the DesPros attitude toward the countryscitizens is not unlike that of having a house pet.

The DesPro is most content with the countrys citizens when they are docile,subservient, and complain loudly enough about sundry fears or discomfort to

identify a new and urgent crisis requiring legislation. But dont question

the motives or integrity of your master DesPro. Even worse, dont behave in amanner that is the least threatening to your master DesPro. If you make them

too uncomfortable, they WILL punish you. If you get really out of hand, theywill destroy you personally, financially, or perhaps even physically.

The hallmark of the DesPro is change. They always have a long laundry list

of initiatives that will make us all prosperous. They believe that simplymaking some idea a point of law causes it to magically yield to the force ofthat law. Hence we have mounted wars on poverty, drugs, ignorance, demon

rum, etc. etc. The DesPro believes that anything can be accomplished if youhire enough people and throw enough money at it. But the need for change

never falters. Should the DesPro be 100% successful in implementing todayslist of changes, theyll be back every day following with a new list.

In 200+ years of our existence as a nation, virtually no social program

managed by the government has been an economic success and few have been anoperational success. Yet the DesPro is eternally optimistic. Every election

cycle he/she goes back to their constituents to promise still more law, morelargess financed by taxes confiscated at the gun-point from those who are

truly capable and willing to add value to our country.

The ideal condition for the HonPat is no change at all. A good day in thelife of congress populated with HonPats is, Nothing on the agenda today

folks. Violations of liberty requiring the attention of our courts are at anall time low. No cases suggesting the need for new law have been presented.Lets go home. The populace of an honorable nation needs no law since no

liberties have been or are being violated.

Another way to distinguish DesPros and HonPats is by the company they keep.The DesPro has no real friends. Since the protection of liberty is counter-

productive to their legislative agenda, everybodys liberty is at some degreeof risk from the DesPro . . . even that of their associates.


3/32

DesPros have no real friendships, only alliances. They can work collectively

in what appears to be honest friendship, but when a conditions of theiralliance breaks down, theyre just as likely to attack a former colleagueas they are their worst enemy . . . which by definition includes the entire

community of HonPats.

The HonPat is friends with all other HonPats. As practitioners and promotersof honorable behavior, they never have reason to fear each other. They have a

bed-rock foundation upon which their collective efforts can be pursued inconfidence . . . that the men and women by their side can always be depended

upon.

It is a certainty that the GOOOH questionnaire was crafted with honorableintentions. But as I read through the questions, it was obvious that the

answers to these questions would NOT offer the discerning voter insight as tothe nature of the political animal answering the questions. The questionnaire

does touch on the hot-buttons of the day. These same hot-buttons are pushedroutinely to convince cheering constituents that the politician before them

will go to Washington to, Fight for my favorite cause. And fight they do.If a single word were used to describe todays congressional behaviors, it

would be fight. But let us consider. If some new law were being consideredto mitigate or compensate for some attack upon liberty, whats to fight over?The reason that fights do occur is because the congress is bloated with

DesPro looters who literally fight over who gets what proportion of somebody

elses work product.

Ill suggest further that this extensive questionnaire plays right into thehands of the DesPros. For example: DesPros will write up a 2000 page bill andwait for someone to object to some few features of the bill. They throw up

great clouds of feathers and floobydust arguing perhaps 100 pages the 2000

page bill. The DesPros could care less whether or not they win the argumenton the 100 pages. Theyre busy with the task of confusing, inflaming andmisdirecting. So even if they lose the 100-page debate, the remaining 1900

pages goes though without notice. Theyll get back to those 100 pages later.This is despotic progressivism elevated to a high art.

This questionnaire will be energetically debated by any DesPro knowing that

only a few of the questions will be resolved one way or another and theremainder will be ignored for lack of time/interest.

My personal interest in a politicians stripes cannot be deduced by the

answers to the questions posed. Im not interested in knowing how theindividual will vote on specific hot-buttons for today. I want some guidance

into their character that will let me PREDICT exactly how they will vote ontodays hot buttons, tomorrows hot-buttons, and every other point of law

that comes before congress in the future.

This requires exceedingly probing questions of a much more general nature.Further, those questions should be derived from lessons learned (byobservation of congressional behavior for the last three or four decades) and

by a clear and reverent understanding of our constitution.

To this end, Ill offer interleaved notations the GOOOH questionnaire as itwas downloaded a few days ago. My goal is not to be nit-picking or

destructively critical. My offering is made with the most sincere wishes forthe success of GOOOH efforts . . . our governmental house is infested with


4/32

DesPros intent upon the destruction of the nation.

Please presume the spirit of my comments to be as a member and colleague ofthe society of HonPats. I am human and I may have made numerous errors ofinterpretation or perception in crafting ideas offered herein. Nonetheless,

Ive been blessed with great teachers. Treat this document as the final exam

in a course of study that ends with this next election cycle. I hope for and

eagerly accept honorable correction for errors of fact or adjustments to myperceptions. I look forward to a continued expansion of my knowledge in the

class which begins in the next election cycle.

Bob . . .

This students response to the questions in the final exam postedon GOOOH.COM spring 2008

1 Will you vote for or against term limits of four years (two terms) orless for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives?

The idea is appealing in view of the number of dishonorable legislative

dinosaurs that presently occupy seats in both houses of Congress. But thisrequires a constitutional convention and subsequent amendment. Doesnt this

run against the grain of what GOOOH is all about?

We HAVE term limits now, its called the ballot box and we have an

opportunity to remove the dishonorable legislator a whole lot faster than

waiting for his/her limit to expire. Then there is risk for convening ANYconstitutional convention. Constitutional conventions are to despotic

progressives (DesPro) as honey is to flies. Every DesPro and his dog will beflocking to the event to argue their favorite tyranny into constitutional

stone. Just as our congress has become a virtual circus of sociopathic DesProclowns, a constitutional convention would be a political disaster unless

tightly controlled by honorable patriots (HonPats).

We once HAD a perfectly good constitution. Numerous amendments to the

constitution have been made already. Some were good. Some were stupid. We canlive with the damage already done to it. If our constitution were being

ENFORCED, we wouldnt be having this discussion now. Many features in ourconstitution are systematically ignored or horribly mis-interpreted. Limiting

the term of any one legislator to two terms by fiat gives apathetic, ignorantvoters a pass on paying attention and taking action NOW and not waiting

around for a constitutional process to do our duty for us.

2 Will you vote for or against a presidential line item veto?

Again, if our constitution really had any operating force, this would not benecessary. HonPats take their oath of office seriously. An oath which calls

for upholding the constitution which means dishonorable behaviors are nottolerated.

3 Will you vote for or against setting congressional pay to four times

the median income, indexing the salary, and replacing the congressional

pension with a standard 401k retirement plan?


5/32

I would propose to remove federal legislators from the federal payroll.

Make them employees of their respective states. If WE elect them, WE shouldpay their salaries and ALL their expenses. Their Washington office to be

supported by a yearly stipend set and paid for by their home legislation. Say

$1,000,000 per year. From that amount, each representative sets and draws

their own salary, contributes to their own retirement, pays for their owninsurance and finances ALL other expenses of the office. Assistants,

transportation, office rent, supplies, etc. etc. Their function in Washingtonbecomes a business unit of the state that employs them. Turn them into

entrepreneurs with a job description. Heres a million dollars a year. YOU

decide how youre gong to spend it. The better you are at doing your job, themore money YOU get to keep personally.

NO external sources of revenue or value will be tolerated. Any allegedtransgression would be subject to immediate suspension of duties pending

investigation pending possible removal in accordance with rules establishedby the human resources departments of their respective state.

No representative of any state is permitted to vote themselves benefit of any

kind from federal coffers. No representative of any state is permitted towrap themselves in a cloak of federal immunity from the scrutiny andjustifiable action of their employer who is the state from which their

support flows.

This action requires no constitutional changes. The constitution is silent on

how the federal government manages its employees and their daily expenses.The problem with the current system is that once the DesPros become adominant force as personnel managers, they might as well be Saudi princes.

They view themselves as a family of untouchables. Sadly enough, it is true.

That idea could be implemented by any state legislature at any time (after ittoo is purged of DesPros). The idea conforms to the process by which the

constitution provides for the election of representatives. It also providesfor absolute monitor and control of behavior by their respective employers

who write their job descriptions and pay their salaries. Most important, thestate representatives are on a short leash held by their employers and not

their colleagues in Washington.

5. Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to exclude people

with a law degree from serving in the House of Representatives?

This is a petty rationale for a constitutional amendment. The constitution

was originally written to protect the citizen from discrimination for ANYreason. Having a degree in law (or any other discipline) should not

disqualify any individual who demonstrates and understanding of andwillingness to uphold our constitution and the rule of just law as envisioned

by our founding fathers. We do not make the constitution better by creatingnew discriminations.

6. Will you vote for or against excluding a plaintiffs legal representative

from receiving any portion of a punitive award, splitting the payment between

the plaintiff and charity?

Punishment is the purview of the state, not of victims or their counsel. Theidea that a victim and/or their counsel should take part in and be a


6/32

beneficiary of punishment is contrary to the founding fathers vision of thefunction of law. Justice is about correction and compensation, not

punishment.

7. Will you vote for or against limiting the fees a plaintiffs legal

representative can receive to one hundred times the amount a plaintiff in the

case receives? As an example, if a plaintiff receives $10,000, the combined

legal fees could not exceed one million dollars.

This is also contrary to the founding fathers vision of the function of law.If we make any changes to the system, it should be LOOSER pays ALL expenses

for both the WINNING side and the COURT. The legal system in this country

has become a predatory industry supported by the taxpayers and has nothing todo with justice (redress for attack upon a citizens liberty).

The division of proceeds from any judgment is a free-market matter forattorneys to work out with their client. But in no case should the proceeds

be the result of punitive awards. In no case should any government entityimpose itself upon the crafting of free-market contracts. This would foster

competition amongst attorneys instead of dividing proceeds from a lawsuitbased on some industry schedule.

8 Will you vote for or against the right of lawyers to use whatever means

necessary to defend a client, including concealing information and using

"technicalities," as long as they do not violate a written law?

Contrary to the vision of our founding fathers, our present legal system is

no longer about justice. Its about process created to keep a lot ofemployees of the litigation-industry employed at no-value-added tasks. Thedispensing of true justice is about discovery of fact and compensation for

damages. Any process which goes to obfuscation or concealment of fact is an

obvious attack upon the rights of all litigants. A criminal certainly shouldnot have to testify against themselves, but overt obfuscation or suppressionof facts germane to the litigation is itself a crime against justice. Any

law which erects procedural roadblocks to justice is unconstitutional.

The DesPros have turned our entire national legislative and legal systemsinto a sport with arcane rules and blinders on referees. Every congressional

or court proceeding is covered on the news like it was a football game. Everyplay is strategically and/or psychologically analyzed by commentators

demonstrably ignorant of our nations founding principals. They are soethically crippled that they cannot be disgusted by the spectacle on which

they offer play-by-play commentary. Instead, they breathlessly tally votesFOR or AGAINST and create celebrities from the ranks of undecided DesPros.

We have just witnessed how a few individuals alter the future of the nationin profound ways. What a circus!

Bottom line is that any undecided legislator is either a DesPro or a coward.

The HonPats KNOW when a piece of legislation is worthy of their vote beforethe ink is dry.

Any law worthy of passage will receive an overwhelming vote from HonPats who

are truly responsible first to the constitution and finally to theiremployers After all, who would vote against a law that goes to (1)enforcement/protection of liberty for our citizens or (2) one of the

constitutionally enumerated duties of the federal government? (See alsoquestion 115)


7/32

9 Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACLU?

There is NO constitutional provision for the government to make anycontribution to any group of any kind for any purpose outside the

enumerated powers of government already defined in the constitution. All such

payments are vote-buying activities of the DesPro community and rise at least

to the level of bribery if not treason.

10 *Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to re-establish

and re-clarify equal rights for all over special rights for a few (e.g.

prisoners, seniors, students, gays, and minorities)?

Any law which takes notice of any legal citizens condition be it adifference in race, economics, age, gender, etc. etc.then a gross violation

of the constitution has already been committed. No constitutional changes arenecessary to address such issues.

Any congress capable of writing just law should be equally willing and able

to rewrite or simply rescind unjust law. Our legislative house is not in needof new chefs, its in desperate need of maintenance engineers.

11 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to state that

guiding principles should always override technicalities and extremist

groups?

Guiding principals are these:

Honorable behavior is that which protects (1) liberty of the individual (2)liberty of fellow citizens and (3) safety and sovereignty of the nation. The

most heroic among us are capable and willing to carry out those duties at

great personal risk.

Any instance of technicalities or preferential treatment of any group

(extremist or not) is a decidedly dishonorable behavior and should be labeledas such. Such behavior by an elected representative employee of the state

(see question 3) should be subject to criminal prosecution and loss ofprivilege like any other citizen. No amendment of the constitution is called

for or necessary.

12 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution with a law of

predominant majority, which says the rights of groups can be denied if

they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95% of the population

considers unacceptable? For example, 95% of the population would likely vote

that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the right of free

speech for that particular group.

The constitution already provides for codification and public response to

dishonorable behavior. Any group that embraces an attack upon the liberty ofany citizen or group of citizens can be properly dealt with as criminalsunder the current rules. But for a populace to be sympathetic with the idea

of liberty-for-all, they must first be educated in the importance of that

idea. This takes several generations for full effect that BEGINS with anoverhaul of the school systems to first purge them of DesPros and isolatingthem from the pleasure of DesPros in both the voting populace AND government.

13 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to specifically


8/32

affirm that we are a nation under God, that God is welcome in all that we do,

but no person can be forced to participate in worship at any time or in any

way?

If we profess and practice a strict adherence to honorable behavior, why is

it necessary or useful to credit anyone but ourselves for how we behave? Was

a belief in God necessary for us to become honorable individuals?

Being honorable is the easiest thing in the world to do. YOU KEEP YOUR HANDS

OFF OTHER PEOPLES PERSONS AND PROPERTY. How hard is it NOT to do something?Why is it necessary for any honorable person to credit reasons for their

behavior on any outside influence? After all, being honorable to others is

the most we have a RIGHT to expect from others for ourselves. Being honorableis a PERSONAL thing.

We know more about who we are, what we do and why than does any otherindividual. We need to unhook the voting publics thinking about reliance

upon guidance of any celebrity, holder of high office, shaman, priest, wizardor Al Gore. Being an honorable citizen is a completely personal thing that is

NOT DIFFICULT to accomplish. Further, it requires no extraordinaryexplanations or dispensation from any of the above. Finally, if Christ were

to return today, would he find damning faults with any citizen who conductedhim/herself in an honorable fashion IRRESPECTIVE of their religious,fraternal or political affiliations? In short, a just god worthy of

allegiance from any human being would demand no more than honorable behaviors

on the part of any supplicant for entrance to heaven. Heroic examples ofhonorable behavior would merit special mention and perhaps a higher station

in the hereafter.

14 Will you vote for or against permitting religious activities on local,

state, and federal property (such as schools, libraries, and municipal

buildings), at the discretion of the members of each site?

This is not the purview of the federal government. Since the sites cited are

public property, any special-interest group gathered for ANY reason should beassessed a fee that is customary for renting similar facilities from any

other property owner. Just because the property is public doesnt make itfree for purposes outside the purpose for the facility was created. So

yeah, if ANYONE has a right to use the facility, then EVERYONE can use thefacility for any legal purpose after usual and customary fees are paid.

15 *As long as the federal government remains involved in the education

system, will you vote for or against the teaching of religion in public

schools, as an elective?

This is a no-brainer. Considering any modes of behavior that assumes the

DesPro will remain in charge of education is untenable. Every thinkingphilosopher for thousands of years has warned us against involvement of

government in the education of children. I would vote for any legislationthat de-funds Dept of Health, Education and Welfare as blatantlyunconstitutional. Our schools should not be houses of worship for any deity,

celebrity, or individuals with airs of authority (this includes Al Gore).

Our educators need to be HonPats; experts in their respective fields ofstudy, not child psychologists trained in the creation of DesPro house pets.

18 Will you vote for or against multiplying by ten the prison sentence of


9/32

those convicted of possessing drugs that are not willing to provide

information that leads to the conviction of their supplier?

Education is a big component of helping them become honorable, independentlyself-sufficient citizens. The curriculum should be a combination of HonPat

doctrine and some combination of knowledge and useful skills which interest

the inmate. If successful in this honorable thing, it seems likely that

they would give information that goes to demonstrating their new outlook onlife. But shucks, if that doesnt work, what the heck. As long as were

guessing then 10 times the years, cut off their hands, burning toothpicksunder the fingernails . . . who knows? Its pretty obvious that the last two

centuries of experimentation in the US have yielded no recipe for success. I

suppose any tactic is as worthy of experiment as another.

19 Will you vote for or against the legalization of marijuana?

There should be NO laws on our books that do not speak to the protection of

liberty. If one chooses to destroy themselves through the use of substances,irresponsible behaviors, or self imposed ignorance, the law under a

democratic republic has no duty in such matters.

However, the law can and should deal with individuals who distributedemonstrably dangerous substances. We could start with alcohol. Then let usconsider foods with effects more deleterious than nutritional. Smoking is

demonstrably dangerous. Not sure about marijuana. The point is that the

DesPro is not particularly adept at identifying and then helping citizenrydeal with really dangerous stuff. So they probably shouldnt be dealing with

marijuana either.

20 Will you vote for or against supporting a completely free press at all

times?

Not sure what this means. Obviously, our constitution already allows for anyone to speak their piece at any time on any matter as long as they do not

intruded on the liberty of citizens, promoted obvious untruths, or advocatethe overthrow of the republic by violent means. This goes far beyond the

print media (which is essential defunct anyhow). It includes all means bywhich human beings communicate with each other and the world at large. How

does the present wording of the first amendment fall so short that we needstill MORE law on the subject?

But we must keep in mind also that FREE SPEECH does not mean INVASIVE SPEECH.

The free speech thing has always been about being able to stand up on yoursoapbox in a public space and speak your piece. You can publish anything you

like and hand it out in public spaces. You broadcast your images and ideasfor any endeavor by paying the customary rate for radio, TV or Internet

access.

But calling folks on the phone, ringing their doorbells, loading theirmailbox with ads/propaganda pieces, putting up blindingly bright billboards,picketing funerals, etc. are all examples of a perversion of the First

Amendment. To force individuals to take notice of you for any reason not of

their initiation and/or interest is an invasion of personal space. If oneinstalled million-watt loudspeakers up on a tall building to broadcasttheir ideas, wed have them shut down in a heartbeat. That is not

constitutionally protected free speech. Yet equally intrusive modes ofpropagandizing seem to receive some sort of pass. This is a topic much in


10/32

need of review by HonPats in government.

21 *Will you vote for or against defining marriage as the union between

any two people.

There is no constitutional concept that permits the crafting of any lawconcerning marriage. A casual study of the history of marriages yields a

cacophony of cultural ideas, customs, regulation and laws promulgated by anynumber of mayors, senators, priests, and cult leaders who have elevated

themselves to some position of power over the relationships betweenindividuals. There is a sound basis in law for devising processes by which

the time, talent and resources of any number of individuals can be combinedto affect the greater good for those concerned and for the orderly

disposition of those assets in the event of death or catastrophe.

This called crafting a contract. Since the principals of any law under ademocratic republic prohibit the singling out of individuals, then there is

no basis for legislatures to take notice of the lawful (honorable) behaviors

of any combination of individuals who want to enter into a contract for anypurpose including what somebody calls a marriage.

The fact that churches and legislators have sanctified certain contracts isprecisely what generates the controversies. One doesnt get all excited aboutsigning up to subscribe to a local newspaper or hire a roofer. Nonetheless,

factions of our society have established personalized, ritualized, and over-legislated notions of what marriage contracts are about. It follows that

demands for equal treatment by any combination of petitioners will arise.

The folks who most jealously guard THEIR ideas of marriage are those who havedone the most damage to their own constructs. This is NOT a topic forlegislative debate by any institution of the federal government and probably

not of state governments either. Individuals who seek legislative redress forgrievances concerning their own concepts of marriage should be duly informed.

24 Will you vote for or against electing our president with a popular

vote, replacing the Electoral College?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are good reasons for this which every qualifiedcandidate for office should understand. Lack of that understanding isautomatic disqualification as being ignorant of the logic which guided the

crafting of our constitution.

25 *Will you vote for or against supporting states' rights over federal

rights at least 90% of the time?

Horse-race-politics to be decided by a 901 percent photo-finish? The duties

of the federal government are enumerated in the constitution. This ideashould not be subjected to any kind of scorekeeping. The ideas supported byhonorable behaviors are ABSOLUTE.

The federal government has 100% responsibility and power under thoserules.

The states have 100% responsibility and power outside those rules.


11/32

ANYBODY who assumes power to tell ANY citizen TO DO anything is boundto gauge their actions against behavior expected of HonPats 100% of the

time.

26 Will you vote for or against reducing total expenditures on governmentprograms by at least 5% each year you are in office?

Theres that quantification thing again. I think it would be better stated

that the candidate truly qualified for office will strive to DISMANTLE anylaw or institution that violates the liberty of any citizen. This is done by

combinations of de-funding, legislation that rescinds unjust law, orpetitions to cognizant, responsible and honorable courts seeking judgmentsthat strike the law down. I suspect it would take less than a one page bill

to state that some egregious piece of past legislation is now null and void.

27 Will you vote for or against reducing the total number of federal

employees by at least 5% each year you are in office?

This 5% per year thing smacks of moderation. There is no such thing as

honorable moderation. DesPro behavior can come in all strengths and flavorsbecause any victory no matter how small is in the right direction and

tomorrow is another day.

The HonPat cannot be excused for small transgressions. You are eitherhonorable or you are not. Onerous institutions such as IRS, EPA, HEW, Freddie

Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. are part of the DesPro tyranny toolbox and should bedismantled with the greatest possible dispatch. Doing it at 5% per year for20 years is unthinkable.

28 Will you vote for or against a requirement that all government programs

have a clearly established objective and an end date of no more than ten

years from the date of creation?

This objective falls into place under the provisions of 26 above. But yes,

every law should have a sunset date which must be extended by direct action

of the legislature. Ten years may be too long in some cases . . . not enoughin others. Details of this practice should be established by the rules of anycongress where HonPats are in control.

29 Will you vote for or against permitting the sale of all legal goods

over the internet?

Any law which picks-and-chooses the venues under which goods and services canbe offered in an honorable, free-market society is already unconstitutional.

No new law is called for.

31 Will you vote for or against reducing farm subsidy allocations by at

least 25 percent each year you are in office?

Subsidizing any free-market venture picks and chooses winners and losers. It

is blatantly unconstitutional. The practice should be terminated as soon aspractical in every venue of production and trade. Lets not single out


12/32

farmers here. The federal checkbook should be published on the Internet.

Every dime that goes out should have name on it and the purpose for which it

has been expensed.

32 Will you vote for or against privatizing government initiatives,

including at least one of the following: national parks, highways, mail,licensing of the airwaves?

The constitution already speaks to this. If its not in the enumerated powers

established by our founding fathers, then some OTHER business model is calledfor. Just because its public does not make it free to be inefficient or

burdensome on a government that is rapidly going bankrupt. One of the reasonsthat the enumerated powers of the federal government are so narrow is

probably because our founding fathers KNEW that expenditures of somebodyelses cash is a very risky business and needs to be watched very closely by

the folk who provided that cash.

33 Will you vote for or against limiting the amount of foreign aid

provided to any one country, in any year, to a maximum of 10,000 times themedian income ($460 million), and to only allow a country to receive funds

for a maximum of two years in any five year period, excepting those nations

in a declared war with a foreign enemy or a genocidal situation? For Against

Horse-race-politics again. Putting quantitative limits or goals upon such

endeavors only gives the special interest lawyers and lobbyists a cause forwhich they earn their salaries. Id be interested in seeing an analysis of

the founding fathers words that speaks to welfare for nations any more than

it speaks to welfare for citizens or illegal aliens.

34 Will you vote for or against limiting foreign aid to ten or less

countries in any year?

See 33. Foreign aid of any kind and in any amount is not constitutionallymandated. It is worthy of some extra-constitutional thought. The honorable,

independently self sufficient individual is constantly improving on theirability to provide for immediate needs and therefore generates some surplus.

Long term prospects for continued surplus drives down risk for buying a newhouse or car. Surplus can also go into retirement accounts or rainy daysavings.

The HonPat in possession of surplus is willing to share of that surplus tooffer a hand-up to other HonPats. This kind of sharing is a sort insurance

against the transient circumstance that we can expect from fellow HonPats.

Its not inconceivable that a nation being managed by HonPats could share of

the nations surplus to help out the worthy neighbor. This is predicated onthe idea that HonPat managers of a nation operating under our constitutionwould first generate a real, liquid surplus that was properly invested in low

risk financial ventures. Further, that surplus might be tapped to aid thelikes of Haiti or Chili in their most desperate hour of need.

But year-after-year dispensing of national treasure confiscated fromproductive citizens by men with guns at the behest of DesPro


13/32

legislator/looters is NOT an honorable deed.

The fact that taxation and expenditures in this country are so punishing ofliberty for our citizens makes the entire process of taxation and expenditureblatantly unconstitutional.

35 Will you vote for or against eliminating all government price and

production controls, including abolishment of the minimum wage?

There is no constitutional basis for any such activity. Thousands of years ofhistory offers examples of how governments meddled in free-market activities

and created more harm than good. At no time in history has any congregationof legislators done a good thing by twisting knobs and pulling levers on the

economic engines of their nation.

36 *Will you vote for or against a balanced budget amendment, with

exceptions only for periods of declared war, a declining annual GDP, or in

the event of a major natural disaster?

This is a no-brainer. No legislator has the constitutional charter to spend

any monies for which they are not themselves willing to shoulder a share of

responsibility. Virtually every legislator since the beginning of our nationhas committed his/her descendants and fellow citizen to huge debts whileducking personal responsibility for the debt. Deficit spending is the

behavior of DesPro looters in the extreme.

37 Will you vote for or against a federal budget that includes any item

whose benefit is primarily for a single state (e.g., a bridge in Alaska, or a

levee in Louisiana)?

Just law may not single out any individual . . . nor any GROUP of individualsfor the purpose of rendering benefit or sanction. If some proposed

improvement is part of the NATIONAL highway system, then fine. Levees mightbe part of an interstate transportation waterway. Fine. But the HonPat

legislator is well advised to err on the side of caution. You dont takesomebody elses money to do any good thing simply because you can. If that

good thing is worth doing, revenues should be generated by those who willbenefit from its doing.

38 Will you vote for or against replacing the current tax system with the

FairTax as proposed by Linder and Boortz?

ANY methodology of taxation that is uniformly assessed based on the ECONOMYof the nation is acceptable under the constitution. The fair tax is about asclose to conformance with this idea as any Ive seen. Its tightly tied to

the economy and does not punish anyones success. The constitution had to beamended to allow the DesPros access to personal pocketbooks. This wasprobably the first amendment that spun a few founding fathers in their

graves.

39 If we do not change to a consumption tax, will you vote for or against

establishing an indexed Corporate Minimum Tax (CMT) of at least 15%, similar

to the personal Alternative Minimum Tax, requiring profitable corporations to


14/32

pay at least that amount (as a percent of revenue), independent of expenses,

deductions, and overseas activities?

The IRS is the most egregious creation of government since Hitlers SS. TheHonPat candidate for federal office will make his/her FIRST duty under our

constitution to de-fund, close down, or have the IRS declaredunconstitutional by court decree. Its the most tyrannical of all federal

institutions. It poses great risk to the liberty of our fellow citizens.

The singling out of corporations, individuals under alternative minimums,etc are all bookkeepers slight of hands. Obviously, the government DOES need

a source of revenue to carry out constitutional duties. That revenue shouldbe generated by some mechanism that is tied to GDP. If the citizens are doing

well the country will do well. If the citizens are not doing so well, thenthe country needs to share in that pain and become immediately and equally

austere.

The Fair Tax is about the most equitable and constitutional means by which

taxes can be collected in a modern society. Its the easiest to implement andwould probably cause this countrys economy to take off like a rocket.

40 Will you vote for or against increasing income taxes, excepting only

during a period of declared war?

In deference to the vision of our founding fathers, INCOME taxes should beabolished at all levels of the economy. See 39. If the Fair Tax were in

place, revenues needed for extra ordinary needs could be generated by the

adjustment of ONE SINGLE NUMBER in the countrys financial computers.

41 Will you vote for or against limiting the total amount of money that

any person can inherit in their lifetime, including through trusts and other

loopholes, to 250 times the median income ($11.5 million)?

Another example of congress taking on powers that are not granted them under

our constitution. The federal government has no constitutional power to puttheir hands on the personal possessions of anyone for any reason other that

to force criminals to make financial amends.

42 Will you vote for or against a National Health Care System, funded with

tax dollars and controlled by the federal government, that provides health

care to every American citizen?

There is no constitutional foundation for this. There are countless examplesin history where the central-management of health care has (1) given DesProspowerful tools to control citizens and (2) drove competent and capable

providers of a good or service out of the marketplace. It is a recipe fordisaster.

The DesPro thrives on disaster. Any tumult of confusion or distress among theDesPros house pets is an excuse to run in with soothing words and comfortingpromises, all designed to keep and reward the loyalty of the pets. Of course,

no real relief can be expected from individuals who cannot lead or createanything. They can only confiscate and destroy.


15/32

43 *Will you vote for or against government funded Health Care for all

Americans under the age of twenty-one? For Against

See 42.

44 Will you vote for or against the government providing Health Care

vouchers to every American citizen that can be used to purchase health

insurance from either the government or a private provider, thus ensuring

that every American has access to coverage? For Against

See 42.

45 Will you vote for or against allowing citizens who are mentally sound,

older than their life expectancy and terminally ill, to opt for euthanasia?

This is not the purview of any legislative body. If any individual finds

their future untenable in accordance with their personal life goals, then how

they manage their affairs is their own decision and responsibility. At thesame time, it is NOT the responsibility of his/her fellow citizens to sink

megabucks into the extension of an otherwise unproductive life. Life is about

individuals and their ability to benefit themselves, their families, theirneighbors and their nation. For the government to be involved is a blatantviolation of individual freedoms.

46 Will you vote for or against allowing a panel of doctors to overrule

the health care decision of a parent for a critically ill minor? For example,

if three doctors recommend chemotherapy as the only viable treatment, but the

child or parents oppose, should the doctors decision prevail?

Where in the constitution does this question deserve any attention by thefederal government? This is clearly something that should be decided by state

legislators guided by the constitution, common sense and conducted asHonPats.

47 *Will you vote for or against capping medical expenditures, paid by the

government (e.g. Medicare and National Health care [if we get there]; does

not apply to care for military personnel) in any five year period for any one

person, to 25 times the median income (approximately $1.1 million dollars)?

Horse-race-politics again . . . every individual should be afforded anopportunity to purchase health care INSURANCE at what ever level of risk

coverage they choose to invest. If the government has entered into a CONTRACTwith military personnel as a condition of their employment, then thatcontract should be honored . . . but as a member of the national, free-market

insurance pool . . . NOT as a beneficiary of largess from a governmentinstitution funded by DesPro looting.

48 *Will you vote for or against a cap of $5,000,000 (indexed) on medical

malpractice lawsuits (amounts greater than the cap will be directed to

charity)?

This is legislative diddling in a free-market system. If a doctor chooses to


16/32

carry large-cap liability insurance, so be it. If he/she chooses not to, so

be it. If someone receives a judgment that renders them insolvent, why should

doctors be any different than any other citizen in observing his/her dutiesas an honorable citizen? There is NO provision in just law for singling outany individual or trade for limits, privilege, etc.

49 Will you vote for or against eliminating the federal Department of

Education and returning all authority to the states over a period of four

years or less?

Absolutely. Warnings against turning the education of children over to any

government have been shouted to the heavens for hundreds if not thousands ofyears.

50 *As long as the federal government remains involved in the education

system, will you vote for or against a law that requires the removal of the

bottom 3% of teachers in each school district each year you are in office

(maximum of 4 years)?

The hiring and firing of teachers should be the purview of the principal of

each school. They are employees of the local school board and responsible to

the parents of their charges. The qualifications and effectiveness of suchemployees CANNOT be fairly judged at any level of government. Control ofschools and teachers needs to be wrenched from the grip of DesPros and

HonPats alike.

51 Will you vote for or against a law that requires a graduated pay scale

that includes paying the top 25% of teachers double what the bottom 25% earn?

Horse-race-politics. Pay should be commensurate with the employers

perceptions of return on investment for the services of that employee. Keepthe government out.

52 As long as the federal government remains involved in the education

system, will you vote for or against giving vouchers to students so that they

can attend the school of their choice (including home schooling)?

Not even open for discussion. Governments and schools do not mix.

53 *Will you vote for or against a law requiring the children of elected

officials to attend the public school in the district in which they live.

Leaving government involved in education is a totally unacceptable notionunder the laws of a democratic republic guided by our constitution. It has tostop.

54 *Will you vote for or against requiring that each student demonstrates

mastery of the English language, at their grade level, before being allowed

to enter the next grade in the public school system, and that those who

cannot, be required to successfully complete an English immersion class?

That should be up to local schools. If the school is staffed with HonPats,

the conditions that prompt these discussions would not even occur. The idea


17/32

that schooling is completed after the student jumps through 12 hoops is

demonstrably flawed. A school run like a business would offer a product that

is crafted by what ever materials and skills are necessary to meet theconsumers expectations of cost and quality.

If a student can become proficient in a requisite skill in 9 years, 12 years,or 15 years . . . then so are it. Each skill should be its own class and

proceed at its own pace. Its conceivable that a student with 9th gradeEnglish skills is fully competent in math required for graduation from high

school. Great, that now leaves more time to concentrate on English.

Human beings are not loaves of bread to be sliced into 12 levels ofintellectual acumen for every discipline. Some things take longer or

different approaches. The 12-step sorting of ALL disciplines combined is ademonstrably failed experiment. Real teachers know how to deal with this

situation. Trainers of DesPro house pets couldnt care less and their work-product for the past 50 years shows it.

55 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution with a Law ofCommon Sense that requires judges to hold individuals accountable for their

actions, particularly when the predominant majority of society would have

known better? For example, Exxon would not be held liable if a teenager

douses his hair with gasoline and then sets it on fire.

Where does our constitution PROHIBIT such wisdom? If this wisdom does notpresently exist, that judge should be removed from office. Similarly,

legislators who do not exhibit such wisdom should also be removed from

office. Responsibility, wisdom, or honorable behavior cannot be legislated.We can only punish criminal behavior and avoid putting stupid or agendadriven individuals in power.

56 *Will you vote for or against life in prison or the death penalty, on

the first offense, for rapists and child molesters?

To what end? Capital punishment has proven a dismal failure as a deterrent.It has proven a cash-flow windfall for participants in the so-called justice

system. This topic is much broader than can be addressed in by theprospective legislator. Suffice it to say that our present system of justiceis anything but and goes mostly to provide no-value-added jobs to lots of

folks who would serve themselves and the nation better by adding value as

opposed to warehousing individuals while their cases are endlessly debated.

57 Will you vote for or against eliminating the by reason of insanity

defense?

See 56.

58 Will you vote for or against removing the worst 3 percent of judges

each year, determined by the number of decisions overturned by a higher

court? This question targets those who are actively legislating from the

bench, those who show a consistent tendency to rule based on political or

personal preference rather than written law.


18/32

xxxxxx

59 *Will you vote for or against allowing a defendant or claimant's

personal history to be admitted as evidence during a trial?

xxxxxx

60 Will you vote for or against requiring that only the Constitution and

the laws of the United States be considered when deciding cases or writing

opinions, in effect preventing judges from applying the standards of

international behavior?

This should be part of the job description for hiring and retaining the

judge.

61 *Will you vote for or against a penalty of at least twenty years in

prison, on the first offense, for dealers 16 or older who sell drugs to

minors.

Whats 16 years of age got to do with anything? If any substance has no

useful purpose to the protection of liberty or adding to the quality of ones

life experiences, then the act of distributing goes to the destruction of oneor more individuals liberty. Distribution of such goods needs to be harshlydealt with as a blatant hazard to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Such substances are no different in outcome than say sarin gas, anthraxspores, or lead poisoning due to faulty water supplies. They are all tools of

mass destruction differing only in their introduction and speed of effects.

62 Will you vote for or against preventing lawyers from knowingly

misrepresenting the truth to defend their client? For Against

The notion of legal representation at trail is to insure a FAIR trial for

both the victim and the perpetrator. The goal of just law and the courts thatreact to just law is to find out the truth and act accordingly. The defense

lawyers duty as an honorable citizen is NOT to get their client off of thehook by any means necessary . . . only to make sure that the truth is not

being distorted whether that truth goes for or against the client. Same goesfor the victim. Our justice system has become a script for televisionactivity that goes for intrigue, excitement, mystery, and jubilant victory

for one side while the other suffers the agony of defeat. It might as well

be a March Madness basket ball game.

63 Will you vote for or against supporting the death penalty in cases of

murder?

See 56.

64 Will you vote for or against establishing a maximum timeline for all

criminal cases, ensuring that court proceedings begin within three months,

end within one year, that appeals extend no more than two years through the

highest court possible, and that both the defense and prosecution must adhere

to the timeline with penalty of contempt of court charges and license

revocation if they do not this includes death penalty cases?


19/32

And what would be the consequences for failure to comply? But of course! MORE

judges, MORE prosecutors, MORE defense lawyers hired at public expense. Thiskind of thinking is exactly what brought us to where we are today. Our legalsystem is a bizarre ritual that goes more toward the benefits of no-value-

added taxation of the countrys GDP than it does toward achieving justice forvictims. To include questions like this in a questionnaire for qualifying new

legislators demonstrates a lack of understanding (or ignores) how we gothere. Whats called for is OLD DIRECTION (returning the fundamentals of law

as a tool of justice as opposed to a tool of tyranny and oppression).

65 *Will you vote for or against capping the amount of money spent on all

types of welfare payments (excluding Social Security & Medicare) to less than

3% of federal tax receipts each year?

Another example of horse-race politics. To put a numerical value on any suchactivity only lends credibility to the activity. Once credibility has been

established, DesPros are pleased to ratchet up the number in later

legislative moves. This question calls for OLD DIRECTION, not a fine tuningof new direction thats leading us to ruin. DesPros fine-tune. But they never

waver in direction. The OLD DIRECTION calls for an orderly dismantling of all

extra-constitutional expenditures as a nation becomes independently self-sufficient. This is the DesPros worst nightmare. Independently self-sufficient individuals make poor house pets.

66 Will you vote for or against limiting the time that any person or

family can receive welfare to twenty-four months or less in any five year

period?

See 65.

67 Will you vote for or against requiring that birth control pills be made

available, for free, to all teenage girls?

No constitutional basis for such action. HOWEVER, given that individualsunder the age of INDEPENDENT SELF SUFFICIENCY are wards of their parents, it

is incumbent upon parents of irresponsible children to make good on theactions of those children.

To bring a child into the world is on a par with taking of a human life. At

one end of the spectrum, an action is taken which deprives an individual oftheir potential for participating in and contributing to their own good and

that of their fellow citizens. At the other end, bringing a new human intoexistence is a tacit promise to our fellow citizens and that potentialcitizen that this new individual has a high probability of becoming

independently self sufficient and will contribute to the greater good of ourfree market, democratic republic. Both acts are equally profound in theirsignificance. Inserting government into the loop as a manipulator of social

order is but one of many baby-steps that DesPros take in the march towardtotal tyranny.

68 Will you vote for or against removing juveniles from their parent(s)

after the juvenile's third arrest, sending them to live in a boot camp that


20/32

focuses on education and discipline?

This is a debate for a justice system that has a track record of abjectfailure in the crafting and management of such matters. Voting such aprovision in law only adds to the public sector employment in the justice

system. If they cant manage what theyre charged with now, what can weexpect by levying a new duty under the law? DesPros thrive under the illusion

make it a law and yeah verily it shall be so. They believe that they canmake anything happen if its described in words and signed by the president.

69 Will you vote for or against declaring that the rights of a person who

commits a crime and is subsequently found guilty, to have been forfeited from

the moment the crime was committed until the moment he is released?

All rights? I presume were talking about privileges of being an honorable

contributor to the society. This question is vague and ambiguous.

70 Will you vote for or against reducing the cost per inmate, currently

estimated at almost $30,000 per year, by 10% each year, until the number isless than the national average spent on public education?

Individuals whose privileges have been suspended should contribute to theirupkeep. The idea that transgressors are somehow relieved of all duties forindependent self sufficiency once those privileges are suspected is insane.

This only heaps MORE injustice upon the just when they have to foot the$30,000 tab. This is not going to get fixed with a numerical mandate, it

requires OLD DIRECTION.

71 Will you vote for or against allowing the movement of prisons and

prisoners offshore?

Hmmm . . . a self-sufficient penal colony has some merit. This MIGHT be a

component of an OLD DIRECTION. But the idea makes economic and cultural sensefor a civilized society. Participation in the communal liberty of any culture

is not a right, its a privilege with demands. You do not attack the libertyof any honorable citizen. Violate that demand and it seems logical and just

that your residence be transferred to an un-civilized society. Youre stillrequired to be independently self-sufficient . . . but under new rules. Whenin Rome, do as the Romans do. Its your choice. Live as an honorable

citizen in a civilized society, or take your chances by what ever means you

possess in an uncivilized society. But in NEITHER case should the individualbecome a ward of the state and a beneficiary of the honorable taxpayer.

Getting a job in the uncivilized society would be much like getting a jobwith the local mob . . . or with congress.

72 Will you vote for or against programs to provide vocational trainingfor prisoners in their last year of incarceration, in an attempt to

rehabilitate them, limiting the expense to 25% of the average cost per

prisoners (this would be a $7,500 limit with todays $30,000 average)?

Why the last year? It should start the first year. The reason these folks

come to the attention of honorable citizens is a product of their dishonor.

Root cause can be a combination of poor upbringing, ignorance, poor


21/32

perceptions of ones responsibilities to themselves and society. If you want

a transgressor to NOT come back into the system, you need a program that

reverses a prior lifetime of poor education. This began with their parentsand was ultimately transferred to government run school systems. Putting theminto suspended animation for 19 years followed by 1 year of intense

opportunity is a gross misunderstanding of the problem that started rightafter that individual was born.

74 Will you vote for or against limiting medical care for those serving

life sentences or on death row to only comforting medication and basic repair

(e.g. broken bones)?

Their routine medical needs should be covered by local physicians office

visits and paid for out of the prisoners productivity within the system. Noproductivity, no benefit. Extra-ordinary care can be addressed with major

medical insurance . . . but again, no productivity, no benefit. The societyis NOT duty bound to support the dishonorable in a manner that goes beyond

that which the individual would provide for themselves outside the justice

system.

75 Will you vote for or against changing the retirement age to sixty-nine

immediately and index the retirement age for those under the age of fifty to

life expectancy minus five years?

Legislative meddling in the free market. Theres no constitutional charter tobe involved in such things.

76 *Will you vote for or against reducing retirement payments to the

"wealthy" or those whose children are wealthy, by at least 50%? Wealthy is

defined as $11.5m in assets.

Offering free money to anyone is decidedly corrupting. Once powers that be

start slicing and dicing qualifications for free money, then its just amatter of time until they justify shutting it all off. Not because they

shouldnt have done it in the first place but because theyre all out ofmoney to give! The government has killed its golden goose; its now reduced

to plucking the chickens. Before long theyll be eating the chickens.

77 Will you vote for or against allowing individuals to invest a

percentage of their retirement benefits in an option of their choice,

including mutual funds, bond funds and index funds?

Government needs to get out of the management of retirement, healthinsurance, etc. etc. I think its within the purview of government to craft auniform law requiring folks to invest part of their earnings in a retirement

account. Further, if individuals were free of oppressive personal taxation,there would be a lot more surplus to be invested. The bottom line here isthat the rules need to be applied to everybody . . . INCLUDING lawmakers

themselves. The same sort of rules could go to health insurance (realinsurance, not transfer of wealth through public coverage of medicalexpenses).

On the other hand, if government schools were not so miserably lax in


22/32

educating young Americans as to their duties and responsibilities as

independent self-sufficient citizens, such rules would be unnecessary. Its a

chicken-egg thing where congress keeps scrambling the eggs. This is a clearcase of the DesPro making a big show of fixing a problem that wasoriginally created by the DesPro.

It all goes toward DesPro goals to make house pets of us all. We should be

dutifully cognizant of our masters wishes. Be grateful of our mastersbenevolence. Be forewarned that any objections to loss of liberty reinforced

with violent behaviors will be severely punished. Overt displays ofdissatisfaction could result in being declared unsafe as a house pet

whereupon the transgressor is incarcerated or destroyed. The citizensgoverned by DesPros are no more than livestock to be cultivated, harvested

and disposed of at the whim of government.

It is certainly a whim. Just examine recent behaviors of both houses ofcongress in the wrestling over universal health care. In the history of our

nation, the constitution and the conduct of our DesPro community has never

been so overtly displayed. Its time to stop ignoring it.

78 Will you vote for or against allowing people who entered the country

illegally to receive Social Security or other government benefits?

The duty of the federal government is to look to the safety of individuals as

CITIZENS of this country. To hand out productivity of CITIZENS to the benefitof other CITIZENS is already questionable. To hand it out to NON-CITIZENS is

criminal.

79 Will you vote for or against requiring annual reductions in total

greenhouse emissions by at least 5% year over year?

The whole global warming thing is a fraud promulgated by the DesPro

community. The world has been hotter. The world has been colder. The climatehas never been static anywhere on the planet. CO2 has been higher. CO2 has

been lower. The idea that mankind has any influence one way or another isabsurd. Our government is charged with the protection of liberty. The idea

that our government should take notice of such pseudoscience is a blatantextra-constitutional activity. Save the planet, welfare, education, EPA, nit-picking personal taxation, medical care, etc. etc. are all DesPro tools for

chipping away at our nations foundations. See James Nortons Undermining

the Constitution: History of a lawless government at:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc.html

If an OLD DIRECTION is to be effective in saving this nation from ruin, it

has to start with ejection of the DesPro community from federal and stategovernments. This would seem to be core to GOOOH principals and goals.

80 Will you vote for or against supporting the Kyoto Protocol (as

written)?

See 79.


23/32

81 *Will you vote for or against only applying the Endangered Species Act

to animals that are larger in mass than a marble (i.e. eliminate protection

for species such as salamanders, crickets, and spiders), unless a critical

contribution to the ecosystem is defined?

And just who defines critical? I dont think the constitution calls forexpansion of the enumerated powers of government in cases of critical need

as defined by the DesPro community. The Endangered Species act, while overtlyhonorable has been the foundation for horrible miscarriages of justice under

our constitution. Our founding fathers would be astounded.

82 Will you vote for or against a law that says the preservation of human

life and personal property shall take precedence over the welfare of any

plant or animal regardless of its status as protected or endangered?

It already DOES!!!!!! Thats our present constitutional charter. We dontneed NEW law; we need understanding and compliance with original LAW.

83 Will you vote for or against establishing English as the nationallanguage, and requiring its exclusive use in all public institutions and on

all public material?

We already have a national language. Its the language of our foundingfathers and the language used to craft the constitution. When we visit or

immigrate to other lands, the idea that we should impose our cultural normsto the culture of a new home is blatantly absurd. An important tool of the

DesPro is to divide and conquer. Aggrieved factions are constantly being

identified or created out of whole cloth. The more factions we have competingfor government largess the less likely it is that a unified consensus will bereached on any matter. This gathers votes not for honorable legislators but

for the crafting of horrible legislation so complex that the ignorantfactions are jubilant when their single issue is addressed as one item out

hundreds if not thousands.

The tool for combating ignorance is language common to the history of thenation and the crafting of its laws. Folks should not come to this or any

other country expecting to avoid assimilation into an already diverse andconstantly morphing culture. If they dont like what they find, then theyrecordially invited to go back where they came from.

Nonetheless, the DesPro will be pleased plead their case before Congress inseek of legislated relief.

84 Will you vote for or against a Guest Worker Program that allows non-

U.S. citizens to work in the United States?

ANY just, orderly, controlled and ENFORCED means by which honorableindividuals can be invited to participate in the Grand Experiment that is the

United States would be welcome. But as mentioned before, the present missionof the DesPro is to identify as many separate groups as possible and iftheyre not already aggrieved, then give them a reason to be aggrieved. The

present immigration situation is a farce financed at the expense of theAmerican taxpayer.


24/32

85 Will you vote for or against requiring those who have entered our

country illegally to, when caught, work on a government project without pay

for one year before being deported? One example of a project could be a wall

that separates the United States and Mexico, though all other projects couldbe considered.

Any individual found guilty of breaking just law should be required to

contribute to their welfare be they citizen or illegal alien. There need be(and in fact should not be) a distinction of rights, duties and benefits of

any dishonorable individual restrained by the justice system.

86 Will you vote for or against creating a law that limits the number of

immigrants who can become citizens in any single year to one percent or less

of the population (that would be approximately three million immigrants this

year)?

No horse racing here . . . this number should be evaluated on a year-to-yearbasis and judged by current conditions. However, should a system like the

Fair Tax be implemented here, it is likely that well be hurting for

productive individuals in a very short period of time (less than 10 years).It seems likely that immigration limits greater than 1% would be welcomed.

87 *Will you vote for or against granting citizenship to a child born in

this country whose mother is not a U.S. citizen, not married to a U.S.

citizen, or not in the country legally?

Citizenship should be earned, not handed out like tickets to a free show.Just being born within our borders is not sufficient cause for proffering

such benefits to an individual. The parents of that individual have a DUTY asan honorable citizen of any nation to raise that child to become an

honorable, productive citizen of which ever nation they might choose.Conditions of citizenship need to be much more discerning than geography of

birth.

88 Will you vote for or against legislation declaring that those in the

country illegally do not have any of the rights granted to citizens of our

country, other than the right to humane treatment?

These are perpetrators of criminal activity. There should be humane and justprovisions for offering alternatives (guest worker, etc.) or deportation but

in no case should the American taxpayer be saddled with any extra-ordinaryexpenses that benefit that individual. You come to this country to become alegal, honorable, productive contributor if not a full fledged citizen. This

needs to be orchestrated by simple, just and ENFORCED rules of law. A conceptthat the DesPro simply cannot grasp.

89 Will you vote for or against opening the borders and allowing any

person wishing to enter the country to do so without restriction?

Anyone who says this is a good idea is not qualified to be an honorableparticipant in the legislative processes of a democratic republic under our


25/32

constitution.

90 *Will you vote for or against fining employers 3% or more of their

gross income if they hire illegal immigrants not registered as "Guest

Workers" on their first offense?

This is a matter to decide only AFTER the laws and mechanisms are in place to

even identify much less control immigrants to this country.

91 Will you vote for or against allowing those seeking citizenship an

opportunity to serve in the military for six years in exchange for

citizenship, but ensure that mercenaries make up no more than 10% of military

personnel?

Citizenship is a privilege afforded to individuals to petition under uniform

law that cites uniform requirements. Selling citizenship is a bad idea.This is calls for crafting a law that gives special dispensation to

individuals in exchange for some good or service. BAD law under a democratic

republic.

92 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make abortion

illegal at all times, from the moment of conception, except under specific

circumstances such as rape, severe birth defects, incest, or threats to the

mothers life? This would include making "the Pill" and the newer "morning-

after pill" illegal.

First, SEEK NO AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION FOR THIS OR ANY OTHER DETAIL

DESIGN TO SOCIAL ENGINEER OUR CULTURE. Any amendment to the constitution ofdemocratic republic should go uniformly to the protection of liberty in afree-market society. Any amendment that singles out a special interest group

is a bad idea for it opens the doors to DesPros to constitutionally codify auniverse of new ideas. Then our 20-page, easily understood, easily observed

document becomes a 1000-page piece of spaghetti typical of many othercountries. We already have amendments that went AGAINST the protection of

liberty and need to be rescinded.

93 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make an

abortion legal for only the first three months after conception excluding

cases of rape, incest or serious risk to the mothers life?

This is a matter for states to wrestle with themselves. Its a terriblycomplex issue that pits men-with-guns against pregnant-women.

In Frederick Batstiats The Law . . .

http://tinyurl.com/ydmoev

. . . we are reminded that the law is a manifestation of our COLLECTIVE

right to INDIVIDUAL self-defense. For just law to be effective it must bebacked up with the promise of the use of force to what ever degree is calledfor. The thoughtful legislator will be hard pressed to imagine our present

system of justice becoming burdened with millions of dont-wanna-be-mothers

held at gunpoint while they carry a pregnancy to term.


26/32

Then there is the question of duty to raise children to a state of honorable

independent self sufficiency. What is the likelihood a child born of thesecircumstances will mature into healthy, productive, honorable citizen? Afterforcing a woman to deliver this new life, who is NOW responsible for raising

the child? If it costs 30,000/year just to keep criminals caged, its notunreasonable to budget close to $500,000 to raise a child according to

government standards. Of course, we KNOW that the DesPro is only toodelighted to have another candidate for training as house pets. Further,

theyll tax any number of juicy resources to pay for the raising of thatchild.

There are a whole lot of reasons that people want to bring the force of law

into the question of having babies. But until the law becomes better atpromoting and insuring the future of babies already born, the GOVERNMENT

needs to think long and hard about their constitutional duties. This goesalong with inevitable consequences of creating some bad situations for the

future. Its a demonstrable fact that everything government touches turns to

crap. Theres no reason to believe that any new initiatives involvingunwanted pregnancies is going to have a good, useful and just outcome for the

nation as a whole.

The honorable legislator knows the government cannot launch a War onAbortion. It will have the same effect as the wars on drugs, drunkenness,

terrorism, poverty, etc. etc. They know that past and present wars on anyperceived social ill have been dismal failures. A war on abortions will have

no useful effect. Crafting law designed to achieve the impossible only serves

to create more criminals. I suggest that any questions about abortion in theyes/no format serve no useful purpose other than to identify a prospectivecandidate in a polarizing light and says nothing about their thoughtfulness

as an honorable legislator.

Further, there is no constitutional charter for the federal government towage war-du-jour on any perceived social ill.

94 Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make abortion

legal at all times?

See 93

95 Will you vote for or against supporting the right of citizens to bear

arms?

How does one vote for (or against) a constitutional right? Since day-one,honorable citizens of this nation have had the DUTY to first protect

themselves against the actions of dishonorable individuals. A second DUTY toprotect their family and neighbors against the actions of dishonorableindividuals. Finally, a DUTY to protect the nation against the actions of

dishonorable individuals.

This is NOT a matter to be debated except as a talking point for the DesPro

who seeks to weaken and ultimately subjugate the citizens of this country.The honorable among us are friends with all other honorable citizens. The


27/32

honorable have nothing to fear from any honorable citizen. The dishonorable

have no friends, only alliances. They are at constant risk of injury not only

from their co-conspirators but from honorable individuals who can andshould be expected to use every necessary force to protect themselves andothers.

Therefore is follows that any legislator interested in relieving honorable

people of their tools of defense are NOT TO BE TRUSTED with importantdecisions about running this country. Further, they are VERY likely to be

perpetrators of dishonorable force against honorable citizens.

96 *Will you vote for or against supporting the right of every citizen to

carry a concealed weapon, assuming they can demonstrate basic firearm

competence, but excluding those who have been convicted of a felony or deemed

to be mentally incompetent?

See 95

97 Will you vote for or against lifetime prison terms for those whopossess a gun (illegally) while committing a felonious act?

Not a defining question for the purpose of selecting competent legislators.This question is Waayyyyy down on the list of priorities for setting an OLDDIRECTION in the American system of justice. If all honorable citizens were

encouraged to carry weapons, then felons are quite likely to be promptly andproperly dispatched thus saving the society from the task of warehousing them

for the rest of their lives.

98 Will you vote for or against establishing an .xxx Internet domain

(e.g., www.notforkids.xxx) and imposing steep fines and significant jail time

for all sites that provide access to pornographic material outside of this

domain?

Sounds like a noble cause . . . but fraught with consequences that only serve

to further burden and already overloaded and ineffectual justice system.Attempting to legislate responsibility or morality (especially on a world

wide scale) is like herding cats. Difficult, exhausting, expensive, timeconsuming and ultimately useless. Theres an old psychological axiom forbehavior modification. Reward the behaviors you want to re-enforce, punish

behaviors you want to attenuate. The means by which dishonorable ventures are

attenuated is to deprive them of customers. This begins with honorableresponsible parents raising honorable responsible children free of polluting

influences of DesPro operated school systems. But as I write these words, thegovernment has turned the legislative and regulator attack dogs on theInternet all in the names of fairness, morality, etc. etc. In fact, it is

about none of these feel-good issues. Its all about handing more control ofor day-to-day activities over to the DesPros.

99 Will you vote for or against the government providing free computers to

all minors?

The government should not be providing free anything to anybody.


28/32

100 Will you vote for or against using our military to control our borders

and prevent illegal immigration?

The military is designed to break things and kill people. Protecting a borderis a policing action. If we can afford to use soldiers and their equipment to

carry out guard duties, then we can similarly afford a properly trained andequipped police force chartered to do the job under appropriate rules of

engagement.

From Wikipedia:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. 1385) passed on June

18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the

Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to

use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal

uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such

are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police,

or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and

their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guardunder federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is

exempt from the Act during peacetime.

I note that the Coast Guard is regarded more as a police force than as a

military defense force and is recognized as such. Our leadership thought thatpressing the military into law enforcement activities was a bad idea 200

years ago. I cant disagree today.

101 Will you vote for or against limiting deployment to 10,000 troops, for

a maximum of three years, in any country which we are not at war with and

have not been for any of the last ten?

This is a matter for the president of the United States in concert withcongress under their constitutional duties to decide. Lets concentrate on

putting thoughtful, honorable folks in the job instead of trying to mitigatethe potential for dishonorable folks misusing the military.

102 Will you vote for or against limiting total military spending to 3% of

GDP, excluding periods when our nation is imminently at risk of war with

another country or a recognized military unit (i.e., claiming we are at war

with terrorists is not the same as being at war with another country)?

See 101

104 Will you vote for or against the establishment of a government program

to facilitate the design of an alternative Transportation System, developed

by private companies who can propose solutions that utilize cleaner, moreefficient, fuels (such as fuel cells), is not dependent on a foreign country,

and can begin deployment within ten years?

This is a matter for free-market forces and talents to implement. The

government should certainly encourage such activities. Elimination of anoppressive system of taxation would be a good start. Elimination of special


29/32

interest restrictions and regulation would help too. Where there IS a need

and a market there WILL be a product developed to address that market.

Government programs are destined to fail. Do a Google on abandoned windfarms. The numbers of such instances will continue to grow at an accelerated

pace even as government pours our dollars into subsidizing new ones.Government under a democratic republic has no business involving itself in

any such program.

105 *Will you vote for or against legislation that removes federal

restrictions on drilling for oil in every state as well as along the US

coastline?

Government has a duty to demand that folks exploit resources in an honorablemanner. They cant make a big mess and they have to clean up after

themselves. Beyond that, government has no role in deciding who does what andwhere. Every attempt to conserve or force alternatives has been a

demonstrable failure. Such measures have nothing to do with economics or

responsible behaviors. Government involvement the control of free-marketcommodities is a tool the DesPro can use to keep their house pets docile and

compliant.

106 Will you vote for or against funding nuclear power plants to help

address our energy needs?

If a nuclear plant is economically viable, then government has no more reason

to spend my money on it than it does for windmills wind mills or solar

panels. Legislators are uniquely unqualified to judge the potential return oninvestment for any business venture. If they want to put money in suchprograms, let them use THEIR money, not OUR money.

107 Will you vote for or against funding the development of fuel cell

technology beyond all others?

See 106.

The general public is astoundingly ignorant of technology and economics.Since our legislators are selected by popularity contest from among thegeneral public it follows that in no way should the government be attempting

to influence any commercial venture.

108 Will you vote for or against legislation that targets lowering the

number of homeless by at least 5% each year?

Government is RESPONSIBLE for a substantial portion of the homeless. The

DesPro community has created situations that have forced folks on the lowerend of our economic bell curve to get pushed still lower. They EDUCATED mostof those folks and failed to instill ideals of honorable and independent self

sufficiency. Their parents couldnt do the job because they too were productsof DesPro schooling.

Finally, the DesPros definition of exactly who is homeless is not welldefined. This generated a huge housing bubble when government decided


30/32

everyone should OWN a home whether they could afford to or not. Hence Freddie

Mac, Fannie Mae, FHA, CRA, a brain-dead SEC that let Wall Street run amok,

followed by expenditures of train loads of money we dont have to bail outfolks that were too big to fail

The correct answer to EVERY question of new DesPro initiatives is, Unless itgoes to justice for the violated liberty of some citizen, NO!

See previous citation of Bastiat.

109 Will you vote for or against the United States withdrawing from the

U.N.?

The UN is a failed experiment. It serves no useful purpose other than toallow a bee-swarm of elites to draw salaries and kickbacks in the name of the

greater world good. The institution is a nest of lazy do-gooders, liars andthieves. Yes, we should get out and kick them out of the country as well.

Hmmmm . . . perhaps they should be preserved as an example of where we areheaded as a nation. See the UN Declaration of Human Rights at:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

. . . but take special note of Article 29(3) where we read:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and

principles of the United Nations.

In other words, all the foregoing good words apply to everyone else but shallnot be used

Documents

Analysis of GOOOH Questionaire