Or
A while back I received a poll questionnaire in the mail from Mitch Mc Connell of the Senate, and the Republican National Committee. Shazam! Wow! I am finally being polled!!
I always wondered if anyone actually answered those polls, or if they were all just made up.
It seems that I am a stalwart member of the Republican Party and a major source of philosophy and opinion for the conservative movement, at least according to the cover letter. This was great news to me, as I had been a registered "Non Partisan" voter since I was 21 years old; until the county recorder/clerk started to refuse my registration as such a few years ago, when I moved and had to re-register. As of the last election day I am a registered Libertarian. But that is OK, It still feels good to be accepted by someone in power, even if only to cover a begging letter with an opinion poll.
As usual, the questions were heavily slanted (Don't point that question at me, it's loaded!) such as:
#2 "Do you believe that you should keep more of your hard earned money or that the government should get more of your money for increasing bureaucratic government programs?" With check boxes for "YES" or "NO".
Guess which one I checked? The rest of the questions were of that sort, but I cannot quote them all here because of the copyright law that says I can only quote the parts I am writing about.
Well, I just find it all-fired hard to pass up a chance to respond to any request for my opinion (Stand back! Here comes a tirade!) or to tweak the nose of someone who wants me to think that he is on my side; while he is picking my pocket and welding leg irons on me. (I wish he would stop. I have hairy ankles, and the smoke smells purely awful!)
Herewith then are the questions that are quotable; added to my letter, with answers beyond the profound "YES", "NO" and "UNDECIDED".
73672.2172@compuserve.com
Graphics on the Mac
Mitch Mc Connell
Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
March 4, 1997
Dear Mitch
Thank you for sending me your "Benchmark Poll" today. I have filled it out and sent it in for tabulation. It is #009-27-1770.
Last November I went to the polling place and voted straight Republican ticket. I did this to defeat William Clinton and the Communist Party.
I failed.
I then went straight home and filled out a new voter registration form and mailed it in to change my party affiliation from Non-Partisan to Libertarian. I will not vote Republican again unless your candidates can convince me that they will uphold the law of the land in the offices for which they are running. If they can do that, I will vote for any Republican that runs. Otherwise I will vote for the Libertarian.
Your poll is rather good for a party-biased piece of work. However it needs some improvements, for which I will help you with commentary on each question that needs it. In exchange I ask a boon, which I will put at the end of this letter. I think you know the questions in your own poll, so I will list only the responses: [Editorial note: the questions are inserted for this article.]
1. yes3. Which tax measure should the Senate consider this legislative session? (Please check only one)
3. Taxes are not just what you label a "tax". They are the money, goods and services which you as a government command the use and disposition of. The current rate is not known by anyone -- as far as I can tell, but the best estimate I have heard is 50 to 55 percent, from Milton Freidman.
As about two thirds of the federal government's functions are forbidden by law (see the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States) as measured by the money and effort spent on them; your party as currently constituted in the Congress could abolish the illegal operations of the Federal Government with the next appropriations bill. This would balance the budget with a two-thirds surplus. You could then reduce taxes by one-third and use the other third to pay back the government's debts. The legitimate functions of government at all levels would require a tax rate on the order of ten to twelve percent in a free-market economy, as required by our law. You could then return to question #3 and see if it is moot or not.
Go back and try again.7. Do you believe prayer should be allowed in public school?
7. Your question contains two a priori assumptions (both false) and one lie. Bad form.
Assumption #1: Government is authorized to run and control
schools.
Assumption #2: The first article of amendment has been repealed, and
we now have a state religion.
The lie: To refrain from forcing a person to pray is to prohibit him
from praying.
The facts:
#1. Your are forbidden by law to run or control schools (see the Tenth Amendment).
#2. The First Amendment has not been repealed. You are forbidden by law to prohibit any religious exercise that does not injure or threaten immediate injury to another person or property. This includes prayer. Any person may by right and law pray at any time and in any place. You are also forbidden by law to require any religious exercise. (see the First Amendment.)
Re the lie: The programs referred to are not about permitting prayer, as prohibition is forbidden by law. That which cannot be forbidden cannot, by it's nature, be permitted. The programs referred to are to force children to pray at the times and places and in the manner specified by government employees in violation of the law (see the First Amendment).
Go back and try again.9. Do you support a large and bureaucratic government-run health care system or a private-sector solution to America's health care problems?
9. America does not have health care problems. Individuals have health care problems, most caused by your government. The question is therefor moot. As government is forbidden by law to be involved in the medical decisions of individuals, (see the Tenth Amendment) all government health and medical programs are criminal in nature.
Go back and try again.12. During Bill Clinton's tenure in office, America has become a much more frightening place. Would you support a Constitutional Amendment protecting victims' rights?
12. These two sentences do not ask a rationally intelligible question. I will try to address the emotion that is apparently referred to.
The phrase "frightening place" seems to refer to the high level of violent crime that we suffer in America. This excessive crime is committed by individual criminals, organized groups of criminals and government para-military forces. All societies suffer some crime. Ours is excessive. The excessive level is caused by government action alone; primarily money transfers such as "welfare" and various subsidies, drug prohibition and the beginning civil war that your government is waging against the people of the United States. If you wish to reduce excessive crime, stop doing the causative actions that produce it and the results of your bad behavior will subside.
You seem to blame the President for some of the excessive crime that we suffer. You are correct. As the crimes of William Clinton include espionage, mass murder and treason; he must be tried for these crimes; and, if convicted by a randomly selected jury of his peers, he must be executed in the manner prescribed by law.
I cannot support your proposed Constitutional Amendment because you do not specify any content for it. Send me a draft copy and I will tell you if I approve.
By the way, I already "support a Constitutional Amendment protecting victims' rights." It is the existing Second Amendment. I see no need for another.
Go back and try again.14. Bill Clinton is already back-pedaling away from the welfare reform legislation that he signed into law last year! Should the Senate fight to keep the sweeping and historic welfare reform passed last year by the Republican Congress?
14. This constant request for my permission to violate my law is getting tiresome! Now listen up and get this straight!
I am your sovereign. You are my servants. I have and retain all authority over and ownership of the United States Government.(An equal share of the political power of the nation along with my 250,000,000+ neighbors.) We do this by force of arms. That means that if you get too far out of line and commit too many and too large crimes in office, we will abolish your organization by means of military force and replace you with something better. If you think that you are now too strong to be defeated, remember that we whipped the ass of German George and we can whip yours too. After all, as of the last count that I have seen, we (just the armed militia among us) out-number your forces by about 35 to 1.
Therefor, our word is law, backed by the armed might of approximately 80,000,000 militia personnel. We have given you our law. It is called the Constitution of the United States. It defines the political nature of the country and the structure and powers of the government. It also prohibits all actions of government that are not specifically authorized by the granting of a power and authority to carry them out. You will find this prohibition in the Tenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution, as follows:
Also, note this from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having formed in nature of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts
are bound to enforce it."
(For the above quote I am indebted to Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC Ret.)
Now, to the case at hand. Welfare reform. You are prohibited by law to operate, mandate or fund any welfare program of any kind. Bill Clinton did not sign into law any welfare reform legislation last year; or at any other time. Neither has any other president; as welfare programs are prohibited by law to exist, so there can be no welfare laws. You are therefor required by law to shut down all of your welfare programs at once, and any "reforms" you passed last year are moot.
Go back and try again.15. Whose side are you on?
15. "Ah may be stupid, but Ah ain't DUMB!" When faced with an either/or answer list, one can usually be sure that the truth is to be found in another direction entirely. Your choice of sides is not that at all. It is, rather, a choice between factions. As there are more than two factions involved in American politics, the question is not only moot, it is silly! For my views on factions (with a little help from James Madison!) see my annotated Tenth Federalist at my academic Web site.
The correct answer to this question is "MINE!"
Go back and try again.16. 1997 plans to be a very busy legislative session for the Senate. Which of the following issues do you believe to be the most important issues facing the Senate and our nation? (check as needed):
16. Bulleted issues = yes
Issues which require comment:
Fix Medicare -- My law on the subject of Welfare applies equally to Medicare and other federal health/medical programs.
Ban Partial-Birth Abortion -- This one is easy!
If "PBA" is murder of a legal person, then it is covered by state laws prohibiting murder. The federal government is prohibited by law to legislate in this area. (See Amendment #10 -- again!)
If the foetus thus aborted is not a person, then the question is one of justification of a prohibition on personal action. This is only justified in the case of harm or credible threat of immediate harm to another person or property.
Both the Common Law and United States law say that a person has been born. A foetus is therefor not a person yet. If it is not part of the body of the mother-to-be; then it must be her property. (By the way, her body is her property too. If this were not true, she would be a slave and the question would be moot. Her Master would then decide.) If the mother-to-be and the medical personnel present are the only people involved, then we must look farther afield for the reason for the prohibition.
It is reasonable to look to the arguments of the proponents of the prohibition for their reasons to prohibit. Those arguments are always based on the Canon Laws of the various Christian churches. Since the reasons are religious in nature, and your government is prohibited by law to legislate on the subject of religion, (the first Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...") you are therefor prohibited by law from passing any bill or act on the subject of abortion of pregnancy. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Reform Health Care -- My law on the subject of Welfare applies equally to all federal health/medical programs.
Crack Down on Campaign Finance Abuses -- What in the ever-lovin', blue-eyed world do you mean by Campaign Finance Abuses?
Do you mean the White House Bed and Breakfast operation? Perhaps using government facilities to shake down potential contributors to the Communist Party? Selling rides on Air Force 1? Selling economic and military secrets of the United States to foreign governments for cash to run a political campaign? If that stuff is what you mean, I must agree that a crackdown is not only a good idea, it is required by law.
If you mean attacking me for giving support or money to the wrong candidate; or doing too much giving of money or work to win an election; or registering me in a database for future retaliation; I must remind you that you are forbidden by law to meddle in my business in these areas. The pertinent law is the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..."
Go back and try again.17. Do you want to continue the Republican majority in the Senate beyond the year 1997?
17. No.
The Republican Party would make a good minority party with the Libertarian Party in the majority. Then the Libertarians could curb Republican tax-and-spend and religious excesses, and you Republicans could rein-in the anarchists among the Libertarians; so the Chinese and Andorran hordes will not over-run us. I think that would make a rather good balance, don't you?
I hope that you find the above useful and not too insulting. Although, I would think that it would only insult a Communist aristocrat, and not a loyal United States Senator. (Oh, yes! I know, I know! Another one of those either/or choices of little truth!)
Now for the boon. As I do not have any representation in the United States Senate, due to the fact that the one member and the impostor from California are both Communists; I need to hire a couple of Senators. Do you know of anyone in your House who is interested in enforcing the law and could use an out-of-state constituent? Party affiliation does not matter as long as the member is honorable and upholds his or her oaths. After paying about 60% of my income to your governments in taxes and tribute, I can afford about $1 per year each. Any help you can offer me in this quest will be appreciated.
My best wishes to you and your family, may this note find you all in good health.
Death To The Tyrants, Restore The Republic!
Michael T. Bradshaw