The Patriot Voices Forum

The Patriot Voices forum encourages healthy and positive discourse about the critical issues facing our nation. Opinions expressed within this forum belong to the respective posters, and are not endorsed by the Patriot Voices organization. Patriot Voices reserves the right to remove any forum thread or comment that fails to meet our site guidelines.

CRPD Question

I called Senator Casey’s office and I was told CRPD would not change anything that is current law in the US, in fact, this would force other nations to follow these guidelines which are modeled by our current law. Is this true? Or would we be forced to abide by future changes in the UN guidelines?

3 reactions Share

Punishing lawlessness in the WH

No President in the last 100 years has had such a high disrespect for the law and the constitution. I began to notice it big time with his comments on the DOMA laws. The health care laws, right of conscience, disregard of getting consent to place troops in combat in Libya, Sinai, Turkey and Syria. Leon Panetta states, he gets his marching orders after talking to both the President and the UN. His Health Secretary broke the law. He said nothing. His Department of Justice top official stonewalled congress, he said nothing. His Department of the treasury aided a company to put its debts on the taxpayer. He said nothing. Currently we can't impeach him due to the Senate but could the house sanction parts of his salary to get his attention? Which is worse a Morsi (Egypt) a Dictator or a president that ignores the law when it doesn't suit his purposes? This breeds anarchy, contempt and states wanting to secede. He is in the process as your column has stated to dividing Israel. There are grave repercussions coming if that occurs.  Its time he goes!

2 reactions Share

Special Treatment for Congress?

Two big surprises to me, and many other Americans I'm sure, is that Congress will not be participating in Obama Care.  If they voted to impose this on U.S. Citizens then why are THOSE U.S. Citizens exempt? Also, is insider-trading still legal for Congress?  

I sent letters asking these same questions to my 2 Colorado senators, Bennett and Udall.  Got no answer to these questions from either one.  No surprise there, but do you have any insight into this? 

This U.S. Citizen want to see at least these two issues clarified and rectified.  If you or any of the readers have any insights, would greatly appreciate it.

2 reactions Share

Organizing in NE Ohio

We are starting a local group of Patriot Voices in NE Ohio, encompassing the counties Lake, Ashtabula and Geauga. Ashtabula County borders Erie and Crawford Counties in Pennsylvania. We hope to have our first meeting in early January.  Please pass the word along to your NE Ohio friends, and ask them to contact me for details and continuing updates.  PERSONAL MESSAGE TO RICK SANTORUM: if you run again for POTUS, I will go into debt supporting your candidacy yet again.  I believe in you, your family and your cause. Give Bella a big KISS from the entire very active pro-life community of NE Ohio. By the way, BHO DID NOT WIN LAKE OR GEAUGA COUNTIES.

6 reactions Share

From the Youth of America: Reject the UN CRPD has been working with Generation Joshua to create a petition against the CRPD from the Youth of America... and it's finally done!

Please sign now!  Also, email it to all your friends, post it on your blogs and websites... Everything!  We need 5000 signatures before Friday.

Sign it at...

4 reactions Share


PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR NATION.  I don't know how many of you have heard, but the UN CRPD will come up for a cloture vote on Wednesday requiring only 60 votes.  To learn more go to

I am personally staying up late to email all 100 Senators and I will call as many as possible tomorrow.  Other ideas include using the web by emailing all your friends and posting on your websites and blogs, and calling friends with special needs kids.

Thank you so much for praying and acting on this.  Your voice, multiplied by a million, will make a huge difference.

5 reactions Share

Why are you Republican?

I would encourage everyone to read the entire 2012 GOP Platform so you truly understand what we are fighting for and why.  It's sixty-two pages, but those 62 pages are definitely worth reading.

Many of you were dedicated volunteers during the election.  Volunteers especially should read this.  We should know what we supported with our generous donations of time and energy.

For me, reading the Republican Platform was refreshing.  Here are just a few particularly encouraging highlights:

Page 36: The Republican Party is the party of fresh and innovative
ideas in education. We support options for learning, including home schooling and local innovations...

Page 43: A Republican Commander in Chief will
protect religious independence of military chaplains
and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious
symbols from military facilities. We will enforce
and defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) in the Armed Forces as well as in the civilian

Page 45: "Under our Constitution, treaties become the law
of the land. So it is all the more important that the
Congress—the Senate through its ratifying power and
the House through its appropriating power—shall reject
agreements whose long-range impact on the
American family is ominous or unclear. These include
the U.N. Convention on Women’s Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities...

Please take the time to read the GOP Platform:

1 reaction Share

a look back at a message from my friend Ric in Alaska

"From Within"


The Second American Revolution


After the Ryan Plan, what next?


Chairman and VP nomine Congressman Paul Ryan has crafted an important and timely plan for how the United States gets out of going over a physical cliff within the next 3 years.  It is the only plan on the table to date, and it has been rightly endorsed by the House Republicans, the Romney campaign, and most conservative thinkers who have seriously studied it.  Chairman Ryan is a rare Member who not only brings enormous competence but also political courage to his office.  He has shown this party and the American people how to lead, not how to push or pull, but how to lead at a time when our current President does none of the above.  He clearly is an extraordinary Republican and a great VP pick.

But let’s assume for now that we have prevailed in November and the Ryan Plan is on the table and in the process of approval and then full implementation.  It is not a quick fix, but a carefully nuanced strategy for starting to control spending not using simple across the board percentage reductions, but thoughtful choices, even restructuring.  For some it does not make sufficient changes fast enough.  Here it is important to remember, that political change is "the art of the possible".  You need to lead, but not so far out in front that a majority of the folks can’t keep up.  This is critical to successful political reform.  Chairman Ryan and Gov. Romney both clearly understand leadership in this 2012 political time and space.

Stopping the spending is the outcry of the Tea Party and the conservative wing of the Republican Party.  Stopping the spending is an important and strategic first step and we are starting to make progress.  In 30 years of working with Congress and Wash, D.C. this change is palpable and the Tea Party Caucus is why it is and why it continues.  They, and their leadership, have made a difference – critical to the future of America.

But stopping the spending will not solve the problem.

  Yes, we MUST stop the escalation of spending in almost all areas of governance.  We need to do the same at the state and local levels as well, and we are, but I’ll focus here on the federal system.  You see, what many don’t clearly understand is that spending is as much a function of legal mandates (requirements of law) created by Congress as it is the personality of Congress and any Administration.  In many areas if you only reduce spending, you may cause harm to essential economic activity – activities that, as a function of law, require federal permits, permissions, consultations, etc. to create the jobs and economic activity essential to our future and our energy independence.

Clear examples of such are Section 404 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers.  Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for any resource related project that requires a federal permit, a host of EPA permits, Section 106 consultations dealing with historic properties – this list is very long. 

If we only reduce spending but do not addresses the "causes" of such spending, we can harm economic activity so critical to jobs and economic growth as well as our own energy independence.

If we leave these legal requirements on the books, do you not think left leaning special interests will not go to court and stop everything?

We MUST think seriously about beginning a formalized process of systematically peeling away these federal legal mandates that cause and justify federal spending.  This is by far the more difficult challenge to this President, to this Party, and to the immediate future of a vibrant America.

So, what should we do to continue our efforts in spending reductions while at the same time beginning to reduce, if not also restructure, the scope of the federal government?  This is the broader issue, the more fundamental question we need to seriously begin a party and national conversation about.  This is what this short white paper is about.

On August 24, 2012, there was a motion at the RNC Platform Committee during their consideration of the Government Reform Subcommittee Report, and offered by the Delegate from Alaska, which outlined a detailed strategy by our new President and hopefully our new Congress to begin this effort.  Although it had been presented to the subcommittee its author was not a member of that committee and it was not considered.  Such were the rules of that subcommittee.  So it was offered on the floor of the full committee at the beginning of its consideration of the Government Reform Plank of the Platform.  As it was distributed and then presented, a number of members of the Platform Committee voiced surprise, serous interest, and a desire to have an opportunity for discussion and more background.  The proposal was shocking, far too bold to be "argued" at the time given the constraints of time of the full committee, but since it was placed on the table and in that forum, a number of committee members and other Republican leaders have approached and asked for much more detail and expressed a serious interest in keeping this discussion open.  This White Paper is in response to these requests.


What is the proper or most acceptable scope of our federal government?


No question this is an issue that can be debated long and hard, with serious deep and broadening chasms in our national political landscape, and often with few early winners.   But, wait a minute; one of the most overshadowing questions during the Constitutional Congress was this very issue.  Thirteen states were frankly and correctly afraid of a strong, ever encroaching federal government.  There is really no question that our current federal construct is inconsistent with what these founding states and their delegates embraced in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.  Keep in mind that for about ten years, this issue rose as states tried to address cross state issues and came to understand that there needed to be some level of federal governance.  Why was this cornerstone issue so important at this time?  What were their fears and what did they craft as the solution?  Is this framework still relevant today?

The function and purpose of the Constitution, among other things, was to clearly establish the limits, they insisted on very specific limits – where there should be no lack of clarity, of a new federal government while at the same time clearly respecting sovereign states and individuals.

Within the Constitution there is a list of clearly "enumerated powers" specifically and solely assigned to the federal government.  Since ratification and the inclusion of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, these have been expanded and further enlarged by court decisions.  Unfortunately, for about the past seven decades, Congress has paid little if any attention to these clear limitations and instead launched an ever escalating and expanding "extra-constitutional" wave of far reaching laws dramatically expanding the scope, the power and control, and thus the cost of the federal government to the clear detriment of "sovereign" states, and the individual and the financial security of our nation.  Thankfully the new House majority now requires that any bill introduced clearly state under what specific Constitutional authority it should be considered.

But there is no question that we do have an authentic, clearly defined, adjudicated list of specific - even exclusive powers or responsibilities assigned to the federal government as a function of Constitutional law.   The challenge now is to work back from where we are towards that list of enumerated powers and in so doing constrict the existing mega-government that now overshadows states and individuals.  Something clearly our Founders, did not want to happen, and clearly feared.

Controversial?  No question.  In fact in many ways this is revolutionary – and for a good reason.

Appropriate?  Little question.  If we are going to reduce "scope" it is the only plan we have.

Essential?  Absolutely.  Both in scope and cost, it is essential.

Difficult?  Without question. 

Possible, even probable?  Yes – with clear strong leadership and a plan.

Such an effort may cause fear and concern in a wide range of contemporary special interests now either employed or dependent of these same authorities, agencies, and programs.  Can this be fairly addressed in a national culture now so dependent?  Can this level of structural change be accomplished without harming the political futures of the party and those politicos who initiate such a task?  Can we enable new coalitions, new power bases, new interests that might just offset any negative reaction?  Where to start?

Not many Americans can list the enumerated powers in the Constitution, so here they are:

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,

Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Note that many

amendments explicitly grant Congress additional powers. For example, the Sixteenth Amendment grants the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived".

Now, I would submit to you that this is a long and substantive list of "powers" and will require significant taxation and spending, but it is far less than what we are now attempting to provide.  Frankly, I think Congress will still be very busy operating within these powers.

So how should we proceed?  My suggestion is that the President, in consultation with our new Congressional leadership, announce the immediate formation of a Commission on Government Reform (in some ways similar to the Grace Commission under Pres. Reagan but with a broader mandate) to include key Members of Congress, past federal officials, and a couple Governors to review, program by program, all functions of the federal government and to make specific programmatic recommendations to the President and Congress.

First we need to know exactly what we are talking about.  What are the programs, agencies, activities, etc that we need to review and consider?

Some of the more objective entities in Washington, D.C. are the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  Both of these entities are controlled by Congress, so it is the leadership of Congress who must initiate these requests, but the President should ask.

We suggest posing the following questions to both entities:

What are the enumerated powers of the Constitution as amended?

What federal programs (in their purpose and function) clearly fall within these enumerated powers?

What federal programs do not, clearly falling outside of these enumerated powers?

Are their some programs where there is a question as to whether they do or do not "clearly" fall within our outside of these enumerated powers?  Explain in detail why.

This is then an "academic" apolitical process that can quite quickly be organized and cooperatively accomplished by the CRS and the GAO.  Their combined report should not take more than 90 days as it really is just a function of inventorying laws and case decisions, even with printing.  The report then becomes a public and powerful document not only available to Congress but to all Americans – and it MUST be on the Web when presented.

During these 90 days of research, the Federal Commission on Government Reform would be formally established by Executive Action of the President, but in consultation with the leadership of the House and Senate.  Further, the President should request the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader to form a new Special Joint Committee of Congress on Federal Government Reform.  Such action would require both majority and minority leadership cooperation and commitment.  In the event this does not happen, the President and his Commission should press forward, in hope that Congress will establish such a joint committee.  Such a Joint Committee would be a threat to some committee chair’s power, so adept leadership is essential and any Chairperson who is objectionable should likely be placed on the Joint Committee.

So, in 90 days of making the initial decision, we already have:

The Federal Commission on Government Reform, established by Executive Order

The Joint Congressional Committee on Government Reform, established by Congress

The report from the GAO and CRS addressing these critical "academic" questions on programmatic delineations

Now there is no question that these activities will certainly stimulate public and media discussion.  But having the report, fixes at least from the initiation of this process, "The Facts" from which we will begin.  Keep in mind that the delineations are based on programmatic purpose and function not on agency, nor constituency, nor partisan considerations.

The Federal Commission on Government Reform must operate with competent staff and leadership consistent with the Open Meetings Act.  I would suggest that it (the Commission) also function under the watchful eye of C Span and that a complete detailed record of the Commissions considerations be kept in written and digital form.  These are historic events and discussions.  I’d suggest that if I could go on the Net and buy the full DVD set of the Constitutional Congress as they argued the formation of our Constitution, it would be a best seller – and for decades.


So, what should be the work and accomplishments of the Federal Commission and the Joint Congressional Committee?


The purpose and function of this Commission shall be:

The review of the report by the CRS and GAO on the alignment of all federal programs as within or outside of the enumerated powers, and a clear articulation of any disagreements as to their findings.

Formal action by the Commission to approve, as presented or amended, this report as the formal statement of our government on these programs.

Request by the Commission of the Joint Congressional Committee on Government Reform that they formally concur with the Commission’s findings and actions.  Such action may include a minority report.

The prioritization for a review of all federal programs identified by the report that are not clearly within the enumerated powers and the initiation of discussions on where such programs should be placed.  In or out?

Once this process is completed, and programs are either placed within or outside of the enumerated powers, a report to that effect be constructed and sent to the Joint Congressional Committee for their consideration and concurrence.

The development of a systematic process by which all federal programs that are now agreed to be outside of the powers of the federal government to states, if (states must be offered an "opt in or opt out" choice)they agree, over a specific period of time and with specific federal block grants to assist states during this transition.  Such transitions and grants shall not exceed five (5) years.

The request that Congress, consistent with the recommendations of the Commission and the Joint Congressional  Committee, formally repeal  all federal laws that in any way enable the function of these programs by the federal government that are clearly outside of the enumerated powers as presented to Congress by the Commission.

The accumulation, with the consent of states, of all "Statehood Compacts" that to any significant degree limit the ability of any state to achieve the same level of economic and political freedom as the first 13 states have enjoyed.

A review of each compact with the Governor or his/her appointed representative on any changes they may desire that further enable their state’s realization of full economic and political equality with the original 13 states.

The presentation to Congress of any new compacts or the repeal of those no longer necessary.

The complete compilation, for a report to the Commission by the CRS and GAO, on the legal status of all lands owned by the federal government, by agency, for what purpose, and under what authorities.  This inventory must be organized by state.

The identification of all federal lands that clearly fall within the authority of the Constitution for federal ownership such as those essential for military purposes and boarder security.

The development of a systematic process by which all federal lands not included in the inventory of military and boarder security lands or for those functions or purposes as authorized by the Constitution, be conveyed to states, if they agree, over a specific period of time and with specific federal grants to assist states during this transition.  Such transition/conveyances and grants shall not exceed five (5) years.

Conservation units within the federal estate that are conveyed to states, may remain as congressionally titled, even when under state, local, or private management.

A report to the President, the Congress, and the American people on the actions of the Commission to include specific costs per program per state, and the completion of the Commissions responsibilities.  Upon publication of this report, the Commission shall be ended.

What have we accomplished?


We have reduced federal spending, with understanding and care – but we have accomplished it.

We have reduced the scope of the federal government by formal conveyance of federal programs, lands, and authorities to states consistent with our Founders plan.

As a result we have also repealed federal laws that create such programs, agencies, authorities, and activities as NOT within the enumerated powers as prescribed by the Constitution.

We have conveyed all federal lands not within the authority of the Constitution to states and provided assistance for this transition to states.

We have eliminated dozens of federal agencies, but not "harmed" the programs or functions they were created to provide as now they are fully within the authority and control of states.



Let’s look at some specific examples of federal programs and what this will mean.  Let’s start with the most controversial; the ones most certainly to capture the left as they mobilize to argue against this effort.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)


An essential cornerstone of liberalism or as I refer to it federal paternalism, the EPA was created by Congress at the request of President Nixon on the advice of then Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel, twice governor of Alaska.  Why was this done at this time?  Because it was needed at the time as some states, local governments, and industries did not shoulder their natural responsibilities to our environment.  Infamously rivers in Ohio were catching on fire, raw sewage and industrial wastes were being dumped in rivers and oceans.  Critical wetlands were being filled.  Pollution created in one state was moving down rivers, across boarders in the air, etc. into neighboring states – causing harm.  If you were alive and aware then, you must agree that as a nation we did not have the environmental or conservation ethic we should have had, nor did we understand our environments as we do now. 

But this has changed.  We have cleaned up the water, the air, and the soil.  We have educated our children who have grown to better understand the value of a clean environment, not just in esthetics but also as a component of public health.  We have inventoried and come to understand our wetlands, our water bodies, our groundwater and their value to clean water, wildlife, and public health. This was a big job, but we did it.

Can we do more?  Yes, but at what cost and under whose authority now?  Do we really still need an EPA?

Most are unaware that we now have 50 mini-EPAs.  One in each state, and most with "primacy" over the EPA in air and water quality issues.  In addition, most are unaware that in many cases states have established higher air and water quality standards than those mandated by Congress and the EPA.  But that is the point; we no longer need an EPA.  The states and their local governments are now doing this job and doing it rather well because their citizens continue to demand it.  Why?  Because they live there.

But what about pollution that crosses state or jurisdictional borders?  Who will deal with these issues?

Again, this is a function of states coming to an agreement under whatever authorities or mechanisms they decide in the mitigation of cross boarder "harm".  And I’m not suggesting the only option is court action or some federal intervention.  Most environmental harm is caused by a very localized activity, even non-point source contaminations.  If we have learned anything in addressing such issues through governance, it is that the closer we are to the problem in our formulation of a solution, the more responsive and responsible our actions.   Joint state commissions, multi-state river compacts that include all involved, etc.  These are options that better fit the specifics of a problem to that location and its environs – but not necessitating a "federal" action.


National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Forests, and Historic Sites


Is it possible for a nationally significant historic, cultural, or ecological site to be responsibly managed by a state?

Let me suggest that it can, and in many cases for decades have.  What is a greater national treasure then the home of George Washington?  What about Thomas Jefferson’s home?  These and many other clearly national treasures have for decades been managed and protected by private groups, let alone states.

Are there any state parks that have nationally significant vistas?  What about state wildlife refuges/preserves that have critical wildlife habitat?  And what about state forests?  Alaska has state forests larger than many states.  Yes, there are dozens of such examples.  These agencies, at the state level, have the skills and the experience and the commitment to manage such resources, even if under a national "title".

The point is that even with the conveyance, as suggested in this paper, of a National Park or Refuge or Forest to a state’s ownership and management, the designation as a "National" does not need to change.  They can and should likely remain as titled and even under the same management plans already developed and approved – but now under state control.  There is little question that many of these conservation units are economic resources as well as historic or ecological.  It is in the best interest of states to responsibly manage these areas as "of value" to the state.

There is also little question that many of these so called "National" areas truly have no national significance.  Dozens of units within the National Park Service for example (the city beaches of NY for example) where added to the agencies inventory for other reasons draining resources of that agency necessary to care for what truly are sites and areas of national significance. 

Think for a minute of the people impacted by these federal conveyances to states.  The federal workers now assigned to a park, or refuge or historic site, will most likely remain there.  Yes there may be some who will want to move to another location within their areas of skills and experience, but that is a workforce that is well trained and even under federal management often mobile.  Certainly regional and national employees that may be involved in the management of federal conservation units will see their positions eliminated (overhead reduction), but again with the increase in state management for such areas, there will be a need for them in almost any state.  Local worker displacement should be minimal if any.

Do you not think your state can manage these conservation units responsibly?  And we have suggested a block grant program (not to exceed 5 years) to assist states in this transition.  The construction of such block grants would likely be based on the cost of managing these spaces or facilities as well as programs.

Again, let me say that it was clearly never the intention of our Founders that the federal government should continue to own over a fifth of the land within our borders.  It was always their intention, and certainly that of the states, that new lands acquired by the nation be conveyed to the states.






Continued Federal Ownership of Lands and Waters within States


The federal government continues to own over one fifth of the lands of the United States and shows no interest in conveying these lands to states consistent with the clear intentions of our Founders.   The "inalienable right to life, liberty, and property" was a recognition of human nature in Europe, prior to the construct of America, during what is referred to as "The Age of Enlightenment".  Thomas Jefferson incorporated these concepts into the Declaration and the Constitution and the first Congress made it exceedingly clear that the federal government could only "acquire" and with the consent of the states within which it was located and such acquisitions would be limited to essentially military bases, boarder security (which at the time was a function of the military), and post offices.

Although what is referred to as the Enclave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 17 authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land within the boundary of a state, it is very specific and clearly limiting as to what type of lands the federal government can own and control within a given state. It also leaves no doubt that the state legislature has to formally relinquish control of those lands. The relevant portion of the Enclave clause reads:

Congress may exercise exclusive legislative "authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"


The initial federal policy was to transfer ownership of lands acquired by the federal government to private and state ownership. Congress enacted many laws granting lands and authorizing or directing sales or transfers, ultimately disposing of 1.275 billion acres.  The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 began a reverse process which has accelerated until in 1976 Congress formally declared, regardless of Constitutional limits, that national policy was now to retain all remaining lands in federal ownership as stipulated in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.  Additionally, under the federal Land and Water Conservation Act, up to $900 million dollars (an income stream provided by off shore drilling) a year are authorized for use in the acquisition of addition lands.

Although the Constitution requires "consent of state legislatures" to acquire any lands within a state, unfortunately most states have passed what is generally referred to as the "general consent provision" allowing without specific state legislative consent, the federal government to "take" land within a state.  Every state should repeal these laws immediately, if only to ensure that each state’s legislature is at least aware of and grants permission to any further federal acquisitions.  To not do so is an abrogation of the oath of office of state legislators.

Property is the most ancient, the most vital institution, with which man became concerned.  Its original function was to secure physical existence. It is a social concept and being a social concept is a creation of law.

Property and law are born together and die together.  Before laws were made there was no property and that if the laws were taken away property would cease. If the definition of property is examined and compared from the Anglo-American Jurisprudence and from the Russian Jurisprudence, they reflect contradictory views.

The 5th and 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says that, "No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of law". According to this phrase, property, the term in its broader sense, is the right of dominion, possession, and power of dispossession which may be acquired over a physical thing, and not the thing itself.

Property, in a sense, is the projection outside, of a man’s personality. Man is identified by his physical and mental characteristics. And in the image of the person must be included not only his tastes, preferences, but also the objects of personal possession indissolubly associated with him. These things achieve an immorality of their own.

The notion of State economic and political equality with the original 13 states, was advanced some decades past as western states, specifically limited by their statehood compacts/Acts realized that they could never really achieve such "equal" status as the original states with the federal ownership of lands and waters often exceeding over one half of their state.  Without the inherent right to make their own decisions on their own "property" to the highest and best use consistent with their public’s consent, in fact limits their economic freedoms as a state and clearly limits their equal standing as a community of citizens.  This is directly contrary to the fundamental notions of the "right to property" recognized in the Constitution and its amendments.

For Example:




-   84.5% federally owned

Of all the states not allowed by compact nor continued federal ownership to fully realize their equal economic and political status, when compared to the original 13 states, Nevada is the classic example.  Their state, due to a clear inaction of Congress, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the railroads is a sectional checkerboard of federal, state, railroad and private ownerships.  If Nevada is to ever fully realize it’s given or "natural" potential, it must be freed from this nightmare of mixed ownerships and mixed management.

The negotiations between the State of Nevada and the Government Reform Commission on both the full conveyance of federal lands and agency authorities to the state would cause an economic revolution across that state to the benefit of the people of Nevada and to the nation.

Again, most of the current federal employees who deal with such things as grazing permits, and other permissions would not have to leave their homes or jobs.  It would be in the best interest of the State of Nevada to assimilate them into their workforce.  Now, I’d also suggest that if there is a group or an individual company that has been grazing livestock across these lands for, in some cases three generations, maybe these areas should be sold by the states to such users at fair market value, but that’s up to the state once they have their right of ownership – their natural property.




– 69% federally owned

As a condition of its Statehood Act/Compact, Alaska is not allowed to sell any of its subsurface rights (oil, gas, minerals) covering about 101 million acres.  No other state has this limitation as a function of its achieving statehood.

Alaska is the largest state in the United States in land area at 586,412 square miles, which is over twice the size of Texas, the next largest state. Alaska is larger than all but 18 sovereign countries. Counting territorial waters, Alaska is larger than the combined area of the next three largest states: Texas, California, and Montana.  It is also larger than the combined area of the 22 smallest U.S. states.

According to an October 1998 report by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), approximately 65% of Alaska is owned and managed by the federal government as public lands, including a multitude of national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges. Of these, the BLM manages 87 million acres, or 23.8% of the state. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuges is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  It is the world's largest wildlife refuge, comprising 16 million acres.

Of the remaining land area, the state of Alaska owns 101 million acres; its entitlement under the Alaska Statehood Act.  A portion of that acreage is occasionally ceded to organized boroughs, under the statutory provisions pertaining to newly formed boroughs. Smaller portions are set aside for rural subdivisions and other homesteading-related opportunities, though these are infrequently popular due to the often remote and roadless locations.

Many federal conservation units in Alaska are larger than many states.  The National Petroleum Reserve, established by Congress as a backup for WWII energy needs is now under federal threat of having vast areas placed under "other than development" federal designations.  Additionally, vast areas of Alaska remain under federal permitting jurisdiction such as Section 404 of the Army Corps of Engineers, marine mammals under NOAA, ESA, Section 106, and on and on.

Not being allowed to fully develop even those lands "granted" to it (the state), is a significant limitation on Alaska’s ability to fully realize its economic non-dependence – but maybe that’s the idea.  It is interesting to remember that one of the overarching issues discussed in Congress during their consideration of Alaskan statehood, was the ability of the new state to care for itself financially.

One of the trends seems to be that as new states were added going west and then north, more and more land was withheld by the federal government.

Utah – 55.4 % federally owned

Oregon – 53.1% federally owned

Idaho – 50.1% federally owned

Arizona -48% federally owned

California – 45.3% federally owned

Wyoming – 42.33% federally owned

New Mexico – 41.7% federally owned

Colorado – 36.6% federally owned

The notion of "equal footing" as expressed in the equal footing doctrine (based on language within Article IV, Section 3, Clause1 of the Constitution), and found in state enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of constitutional rights, but has yet to be used successfully to force the divestment of federal lands to states.

If states are denied ownership of the lands and resources within them to the extent as illustrated in Alaska to Colorado, how can they fully realize their "equality" among states?  It is clear that Congress has little appetite to make changes here.  If the financial crisis America faces does not enable this to change, it will require a change in the men and women in Congress.


Giving our Members of Congress some help in saying, "No".


Too often we allow ourselves to get so caught up in the policy questions of the day that we forget essential basics.  The extraordinary understanding illustrated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence that makes it truly unique is our Founders substantive knowledge of human and organizational (governance) behaviors.  These are the keys to our past and our future as a nation.

Public policy that does not act from such an understanding (human or organizational behavior) will most likely fail.  We know this to be true from any study of human and governance history.

That is why Socialism fails, it is not based on this understand of people or their organizations.  That is why liberty and free markets succeed, because it takes advantage of these natural behaviors.

Having spent many years working with legislators to include U.S. Senators, a President, Governors etc, one of the most difficult things for them to say is, "No".  It is just not in their nature. After all, they exist as Members solely based on the support of voters.  It is not human nature to tell someone who needs something that you cannot or will not help them, especially when they are the reason you are in position.

We have thought, especially over the past few years as evidenced by the birth and maturation of the Tea Party and the Conservative movement, that budget limitations would afford our Members the courage to say, "No."  But alas that has not been our experience and as a result we as a nation face unrecoverable debt and structural disfigurement.  As Chairman Paul Ryan has stated, "We only have three years."

So we must provide our Members with another reason to say, "No."  And, we have a very convincing one.


"I’m sorry, that is just not within the Powers of Congress, as provided in the Constitution."


I can see a Member actually saying this and just as easily defending it with anyone.  It’s also nice because it is NOT about cost, but authority.  People can argue about cost, but authority is most often prescribed.  It is clear, unambiguous.

This is an essential point as we move forward in this and every election we engage over the coming decades.   This is transformative, based on where we are as a nation.  This dramatically limits liberals, because it is a function of authority and not of spending or income.

If all Members of Congress (at least the majority) and their staff clearly understood these limitations and accepted them as a matter of fact, we as a community of citizens can change the direction and cost not only of our Federal government, but also state and local governance.  We must stay within the powers authorized.

This does not mean that a national organization of voters cannot change these limitations on governance, they can, but such is not likely unless there is clear national support for such a change.  We have done this in the past, and will likely do so again in the future, but this is the construct we need to stay within.

And so we go back to the question of human nature and how we choose to be governed.  That is a good place to go back to.  That is a good place for our party and our nation to stand.

We must teach our citizens what these limitations are, in fact.  That is not hard, but it does require leadership, effort, funding, commitment, and persistence. 

We stopped "earmarks" and Members now say, "We cannot do earmarks anymore, sorry those are the rules." 

We can also do this.                                                                                             


In Closing


What has been proposed here is without question controversial even revolutionary, but it is clearly consistent with the original blueprint of our federalist system, a republic of states with clearly limited federal powers, as argued by our Founders and the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Why is it not?  If this construct worked, then why not return to it?  It is our abandoning of this exceptional crafting of a new governance concept that has pushed the United States into financial trouble and clearly changed the balance of power within our prescribed system of governance.  It is time to begin the process of righting this balance and again limiting the scope and cost of our federal government while returning power to our states and citizens.

The Left will claim that this cannot be done.  That we have "moved on" from those agrarian days of our founding.  That life is far more complicated now, than it was then.  That technology has changed us and how we should be governed.  In making such arguments they have missed the point of the construction which was clearly based on the collective human experience of governance and its failures since recorded history.  These are timeless concepts not notions of a moment in time.

This was not a construct born out of "a collection of interests" but an architectural framework for a new national idea, one based on the revolutionary notion of citizen governance rather than the alleged divine right of kings.  This was a totally upside down notion of governance.  One based on a republic of states, rather than an all-powerful "federal" or national government.  It was an idea of citizens and their states controlling the accumulation of power and its exercise.  Again, it was a construct of ideas – not interests.

The Republican National Committee in its 2012 Platform states clearly that we need " substantive and structural change" as a nation.  This reference is not just to budgets and financial issues, but also to our governance.   The question then is where do we go for a new blueprint?  A new plan?  That’s just it, we don’t need a "new plan" we need to return to the clearest delineation of our structure as a nation, our Constitution, and that is where we MUST start.


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."   




Mr. President - that is where we start.


1 reaction Share

My Family and Rick's economic plans combined

Sad thing is that Rick and Gingrich, Paul, etc had plans people would have understood...Romney didnt really explain anything except pain for folks with no upside. That is not the hope of a ronald reagan party.

My family put the following together that we would love to see if Rick could support. Most of it comes from his previous platform. We believe this will create 25Million jobs, 7 trillion of new investment, and 1 trillion of new revenue for the govt to balance the budget and pay down the debt with once we cut our spending.


We call this plan the Patriot Economic Plan(PEP)--We need some PEP in this country right now.

Blessings the Sims Family


The Patriot Economic Plan:

Establish Strategic public/private syndicate incentive plans with the following benefits:

a.       Redirect the corporate rate to be the lowest in the world, from 35% to 12.5% for members that will use their tax savings towards their syndicate membership and participation in this program. Said membership will require investment of savings into syndicate startups, US facilities, tooling, and staff.

b.      Eliminate the remaining corporate income tax for members of this program who invest in manufacturing – from 12.5% to 0% - for those who invest these savings of "a" and "b" in facilities and infrastructure in the US. This savings will offset regulation costs to build new facilities, and spur middle income job creation in the United States, creating a job multiplier effect for workers

c.       Spur innovation in America by Increasing the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent for these partnerships.

d.      Eliminate the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income – from 35% to 0% - for said partners. Partners/Manufacturers invest in plant and equipment; and reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 5.25% on other repatriated income and allow for 100% expensing for new business equipment

e.       Establish Technology/IP pools with the URIP plan to give these members exclusive ability to grab the rights of use for the companies they invest in dependent on the tier level of investment. STD rights of use for folks at lower tier levels of investment. Allow contribution of IP by companies as an equity contribution to help establish a strong position for these programs.

Create a separate plan from social security called URIP (universal retirement and investment plan), similar to Chile plan(without the high management fees), and enhancing the crowd sourcing bill, to stabilize the economy. This fund will allow US citizens to be jointly assembled and join in with the syndicate partnerships. For millions of American’s this will give them the ability to invest in our future and see a return similar to the oil returns for citizens in Alaska.

Increase the combined tariff + inspection fees to be 12.5% for all imports. This change will offset/pay for ALL on or off budget externally focused US agencies. This should move the US towards a focus on true national security (CIA, homeland security, state department, FDA, military policing, and other agencies) and making it so the US govt can DO their jobs successfully here and abroad. It WILL help balance the budget and create a much larger influx of investment and tax revenue when working in parallel with items 1 and 2. This 3 point plan will create a clear benefit and positive change that will incentivize folks to produce in the US with legitimate balanced reasoning as any business or country would drive for.



Reason’s for the Patriot Econimic Plan(PEP):


The current administration attempted to do a startup America plan. The effect to technology development was significant! But the economic impact was timid and muted from what one would hope for from such an investment and obvious level of invention and uniform efforts by our government to move forward.

Why was this economic result so timid?

I would argue from my experience in that sector the reason was the lacking of the involvement of strategics, which control the growth of the economy. The administration’s plan did not account for strategics, or strategic risk, in the form of high capex, high tax, and high regulation burdens for these like any other companies launch. Historically our greatest booms did not see the same WW competition that creates an anti-US investment and anti-US growth burden that holds back traction for the administrations planted efforts. If previous efforts in our nation would have seen the same climate and infrastructural opposition they never would have happened.  This would have meant the greatest nation the world has ever seen would never have bloomed and the world would have been much worse off because of it.

It’s very sad to say but the result of the lacking of having strategics involved is the greatest moon shot like squandering of all time.  The administration attempted to fill these defects in their plan with loans without syndicates, and without offsetting the strategic risk.  In addition in the event of failure there was little to no chance of repayment, or restructuring, possible and the only result in the end was the loss of capital, IP, and rights from these investments. To be successful they needed to put into their plan incentives to draw in strategics and offset the cost structure at a minimum for the tax and regulatory. This was not done. The result I have witnessed from my firsthand experience in this sector is failure of company after company, transfer of technology, IP offshoring, and the laying off of thousands of workers. Like early failures in the space administration this effect is very damaging for our nation’s confidence, our very existence, and future. Success is mandatory to breed future success. Too many great inventions will be mothballed, sold overseas, or their IP will be bought up and used to sue people in the future that try to restart these efforts. For all the same reasons and gains our military and NASA gave us in terms of the computers, new materials, and other inventions that drove our nation to greatness…we need to retool this effort so that it actually looks like the Apollo mission its capable of delivering on.   If we don’t do this immediately, rather than just subsidizing the research for other nations, we will also be handing off the future to other nations.

 As one small example it is clearly known that the ability to be energy independent is within our grasp. The following are two examples of technologies that the patriot economic plan could ignite resulting in US energy independence: 

a.       Stalled 90% efficient clean coal plasma coal reactor for electricity, jet fuel, precious metals, and building materials production---

b.      3D battery: stalled 2.5x improvement in battery performance, with instant 5C charging enabled, for hybrid cars, trucks, phones, and all portable devices--

Current US operations that export can’t compete globally with the corporate taxes (we are the highest in the modern world—lowest are Ireland and china*—12.5% and 15% respectively) and "indirect taxes-VAT taxes" (17.5% in china) that are allowed by the WTO under VAT models. China and many nations have policies like the patriot economic plan that give tax breaks for companies. These plans in china vary between 30% down to 15% dependent on the incentive option the company goes after. A company therefore based in china shipping to the US can save up to 37.5% on taxes.

These tax and tariff structures are economic killers for the US economy and were the oriiginal first causes of job outsourcing losses in the 1990's and continue today.  These advantages to these countries pull away our knowledge, our jobs, and our technology/industrial bases out of the US into their nations. This can be saw even with our nearest neighbors post NAFTA( in a supposed free trade environment ) we still had 7-8% taxes on imports by Canada (who has government paid healthcare—reducing costs for business and pension plan charges on corporations).  In affect these free trade nations, other than the US, are allowed low cost structures and are incentivizing growth by low taxes, and low tariff’s, while our nation has almost no tariffs, or fees, in place and the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  What then is the real killer is that we then borrow the money to pay for all of our outward focused services (that also maintain the worlds stable economic ecosystem) and then must pay interest on this borrowed money. The concern here is obvious that without two-way based trade and balanced advantages just lowering the tax rates would probably cause a shifting of the tax burden to the general public to pay for the very reason these other nations have these vat taxes on imports. These other free trade nations pay for the cost of trade with those VAT taxes. We borrow it and damage our nation and this must stop immediately!

China also has non-tarriff barriers for certain technologies and requires Chinese citizens to be half owners for these products to be allowed in china. Furthermore this is driven via production out of china and thus said tariffs to be waived from the export side instead. Such a strong armed tactic is very reminiscent of our own nations break away strategies with Britain that lead to our industrial revolution. The Chinese have had a chance to craft their economy based on the advantage of seeing what worked on launching our economy with Great Britain. Now obviously our systems are not updated to the 21st Century economy and they are using our playbook against us. We must change this immediately to avoid any further economic damage. Why has such an obvious need to update our trade treaties, enforcement and tax policies not been done to date?

Obviously historically high tariff battles begin trade wars that have had historic massive impacts to the US and world economies. But services require revenue and one should not borrow and pay interest on items that should be paid for up front with low tariffs, which many nations do successfully today.

For trade policy changes there are strong reasons in agriculture to believe that such efforts of no tariffs are helpful. But are they? Not every nation has the same food crops or food staples for their peoples to eat. Those nations with climate condition advantages to grow certain crops such as certain nuts and fruits that we have better conditions for is good for the US agriculture sectors that are in high demand to continue to grow. But those climate and soil advantages that come from northern hemisphere advantages are absolute advantages that don’t require a <3% tariff advantage to thrive. What they need are open markets. They will thrive as long as the tariffs between nations do not heavily burden the costs of purchase. This is the space as saw by nations current vat policies of sub 15%.

Also one has to be really careful to not consider sustainability and the combined ecosystem of the grower and the markets and nations they sell to. The most recent example is for the US potato market, which is a strong economy adder for the northwest and its rich soil and climate. But as the US job market weakened and the buyer’s no longer could afford eating out the demand needs to the fast food stores greatly reduced. In other nations the potato is not a staple crop. Instead foods such as rice cover their people’s needs and have a very long history of doing so. The lack of updating the policies for the ecosystem drained the resources so much that potato factories in the northwest had to close losing jobs for local economies that were already hurting. It also therefore affected the costs and ability to get to market for the remaining potato market.

Lastly for trade there are also many influential US and, non US focused camps, and representatives of such groups, that do believe strongly in the CONCEPT of all nations must someday have completely open borders with no tariffs. But even their strongest libertarian branches of the republican side, such as Dr. Ron Paul, will state not zero tariffs but at least low tariffs.  Obviously  tariff’s will never be zero since services rendered must be paid for so like anything in life there is nothing truly free. A price must always be paid. So reasonable revenue must be acquired to pay for the service and make it sustainable without deficit borrowing and spending. Looking at free trade partners this low tariffs appears to be around (<15%). This target zone for low tariffs should not incentivize tariff trade wars, embargos, and or nation vs nation wars. This same argument was once coined by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who was the father of free trade. He pushed for moving away from high tariffs to the lowering of income taxes and the creation of income and corporate taxes to offset this difference. This became that administrations major economic change for the nation. It was an is a very controversial set of changes in american history.  But outside of this known split in economic theology that occurred in this time period much has changed with or without that change since that era.  So much so that  the global ecosystem now cries out of dysfunction and the need for change that must be moved forward.

For tax policy change the problem has been for years argued in congress that if we reduce corporate taxes there is no reason for those dollars not to flee the US and go elsewhere. The recent discussions have focused on corporate loopholes to offshore workers vs. territorial tax systems. Obviously this discussion has to happen. But it’s not the the most strategic and beneficial target to go after. One side argues we need more revenue and the other we need lower taxes. Thus with so many non-ending opposing arguments the quagmire has stopped the massive change that is essential for our nation’s very survival.  So the congress hasn’t been willing to go along with any plan, until recent discussions of a meager 10% reduction of the corporate tax rate. I say meager since historically economic recovery has required 40-50% shifts tax/tariff  policy to restart our economy. This can be seen in the 1920’s, WWII period and post recovery given the huge infrastructure investment, and the Reagan years.

So what can be done not under the premise of a compromise but under the need of one unified patriotic action to maintain our goodness and impact in the world?

My suggestion is the patriot economic plan!

The patriot economic plan incentivizes the offset of vat taxes and corporate taxes by a two-step process to go to an affective 0% tax rate for those that invest in our nation.

I want to repeat this message that a two way incentive is created with the patriot economic plan where those who’s patriotic focus is to invest in the US see 0% taxes for their business if they go all in.

In such a model the incentives within a stable economy are too large not to take advantage of for any corporation. Any multinational company would invest in this model given the trillions in savings. As initial starters the savings are apparent in the areas of accounting, R&D investment, manufacturing, and supply chain costs.

If that were not enough on its own there is a very strong incentive for corporations to have a huge derisked value add and upside in the form of a future revenue streams, or reduced cost by access to new technology, without bearing the full cost of researching and developing it on their own. In addition the danger of lawsuits would be done away with in this model. The economy and these companies’ efforts could then be focused on the future, and growth, rather than reallocation of these dollars to large defense funds or lawsuit winnings.  In addition the plan suggests making the R&D credit permanent, and increasing the benefit to offset and improve the cost model for innovation. It also plans for 100% expensing of all equipment investment by these strategics, companies and individuals in the US. 

The Patriot Economic Plan creates an opportunity for the people to get involved similar to the initial goals of social security, the Chilean investment plan (without the huge management fees), and the recent crowd source funding bill. This sub plan called the URIP plan—universal retirement and investment plan offers a strategy to grow the economy and get ahead of inflation for our nation. It allows for this tax free investment to be used to be part of the syndicate partnership efforts with a return similar to what is done in Alaska with the oil companies. Besides investing in our nation the URIP plan allows for citizens to pay for investing in their major life events (1st house, catastrophic/chronic medical care, education, etc…) with savings administered similar to Social Security within dept of housing, health, dept of education and similar life impacting groups. These departments need to be shifted away from being tax and spend focused and towards invest and return focused to give the power back to the people and not washington.  The URIP plan as part of the patriot plan offers a way to move from a tax model to an investment and growth model for our nation.  

Lastly the Patriot Economic Plan takes a serious look at modernizing the operations and costs of doing business in the new business world of the 21st Century. This focus is on government costs and the US citizens constitutionally expected services of govt.  Currently as stated other nations carry fees, tax and tariff burden advantages of a minimum of 37.5% that have been tested and approved by the ruling body the WTO. We in turn borrow this money to pay for all of the multi 100’s of billions we pay out annually to keep this world wide economy safe, stable and functional. There is obviously a point in time when and where this model of generosity was possible to maintain. But now we are foolishly borrowing the money, paying the interest on this effort, and damaging our economy in the process. Now that we have large deficits we must not borrow the money to pay for these services for us and the world.

An important attachment to this is the fact that supply chains and access for many Govt departments that previously did the majority of their historic work in the US border’s need to now have operations in foreign countries, as well as in the US, or if they had smaller foreign operations and these operations must be vastly expanded.  This is a HUGE unspoken cost increase for these functions that have not been acted on by the congress.  In affect these functions must either be hidden costs, or the departments are no longer fulfilling their missions/duties, and or all of the above. In a post 9/11 society this slowness of our govt to modernize is inexcusable.  The Patriot Economic Plan looks at the new worldwide business models and how the US govt must play in terms of national security, safety, regulations, etc. To pay for this huge increase in costs for the US govt to fulfill its constitutional duties effectively the only answer is to have those groups that cross our border, or affect our markets, via all types of trade see a new combined low tariff (10-15%) and fees (2-3%) cost increase to pay for FDA, CIA, homeland security, state department, military, and numerous other outward focused agencies. This will in affect reduce the deficit, fulfill the constitutional duties of govt, and offset the cost advantages other nations have given their countries through similar strategies.



1 reaction Share


By choosing to support Mitt Romney, a pseudo pro-life candidate for president of the United States in the 2012 election, Rick Santorum disqualified himself in future elections from representing committed pro-life without exceptions voters who believe that our unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property come from our Creator God.

Tom Hoefling, the America's Party candidate for president of the United States was the only committed pro life without exceptions presidential candidate running for that office in 2012. This is why I voted for Tom.

If he chooses to run for president in 2016, Tom Hoefling has earned my vote, not Rick Santorum.                                                                 .

9 reactions Share

← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next →