The following were provided to Lacey Patch for a Candidate Profile...There are only 30 days left until the election.
Easier to read from the link (http://www.scribd.com/doc/105330148/Dear-Ms-Piniat) - this blog software crams the post, sometimes removing space between words.
Q: Were you always interested in politics?
A: I was raised in a family that valued education over wealth. When we play scrabble, it's with a Webster's UNABRIDGED handy, and we rarely need it, because everyone is "up to speed" - I bring that up because, in our home, Scrabble is a blood-sport. As my wife and I raise our own family, we have instilled the same love of learning in our children, as evidenced by their collective academic success.
Politics is history, so, yes, I have always been interested.
My father was a reporter/journalist (radio and newspaper) back in the early 1960's into the 1970's. He exposed us to many of the great and influential people of our time - some of whom you would easily recognize, others, perhaps, less readily. We were always spoken to as adults...the same way I treat my own children. We don't "dumb anything down" in our home, constantly challenging our children to equip themselves with a strong understanding of the world in which they live.
I am disappointed that I no longer see patriots serving - only party hacks and puppets. That brings us to your second question...
Q: What drew you to run?
A: When the press actively ignored the Article the First suit, we realized we would not be able to change the rules without playing on the field. I was planning to enter the political arena when my youngest daughter, now twelve, had reached her majority, as I felt my role as "dad" was far more important. I still feel that way, but I have the support of my wife and the rest of the family. Because of that my candidacy won't interfere in her adolesence.
What made me choose to run at the Federal Level is that I see so many ways in which our freedoms are being abridged, and I want my children to inherit the same opportunities I had. Rising unemployment, voter apathy, a lack of respect for our rights by those who presently serve - all of these had a role in inspiring me to stand for election. I am not satisfied with either of the major party candidates...one's whole platform is that the other is "bad"...the other's whole platform seems to be devoted to being "seen to do," rather than"doing."
Incidentally, BOTH have had the information on the Article the First lawsuit provided to them (as have hundreds of other Congress persons, Senators, and State Governors) since MARCH. The ONLY person to respond, and who responded in support of our position, was Bill Pascrell, a candidate in another district who actually understands the merits of the suit, and supports upholding the Constitution "As it IS," not as the "D's" and "R's" might like it to be.
Frankly, with the "Citizens United" decision, it became obvious that both machines were in the pockets of the lobbyists, and broken beyond reasonable repair. The voters in this district know this, but are unable to see a way to fight back. We have a solution, which will be introduced this week, also, specific to "Citizens United" - as to the representation, we ARE the solution. The coming proposal is ANOTHER subject I expect the mainstream media will ignore, but, to win this battle, don't change the players - change the RULES.
In short, I am running because I was tired of watching a two-horse race where the same stables owned both horses. I am financially beholden to no special interests (as I will address in the questions below).
As Davey Crockett said, "...you will find no party hand-cuffs on my wrists...."
So many of my friends and neighbors kept saying "I wish someone would do something about..." Well, I'm "someone".
As I say on my campaign web-site, (and it's not an affectation - it's a genuine part of my character)
"Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left".
Q: How did you get connected with the Ocean County and Burlington County Freeholder Candidates?
In Burlington County, I am bracketed with Donald E. Letton, a retired business owner with whom I have served as an Assistant Scoutmaster for Troop 19 in Delanco, NJ - as he has served as my Assistant. Don and I often speak on political topics, and we abhor the graft and glad-handing we see evidence of every day. We decided that Don would best serve using his expansive Burlington County network of business owners, fellow scouters, etc., to help track down waste and corruption. By placing him in the office of Freeholder, he will be privy to all decisions, and can readily communicate those decisions. No more 'closed-door' backroom deals.
Don lives by the Scout Oath and Law, and I know him to be an ethical man.
Also on our ballot is Kimberly Sue Johnson, who I have known for over a decade. I have known her husband, retired Marine James Johnson, longer still. Kim is a manager of a business here in Burlington County, and is raising a lovely family. Her interests lie in service to the families of the district, and in promoting Health and Education. She recently completed her Masters in Early Childhood Development/Education. I know her personally, and, once again, it is her work ethic and character that brought her to our attention at the party level. She, too, is beholden to no party or special interests...only to her fellow Burlington County citizens.
In Ocean County, we have Tracy M. Caprioni, an Eagle Scout who has been a friend for years. Tracy's background is in mathematics and finance, including auditing, but he also teaches Mathematics at the Middle School in Asbury Park. He is active in the Teachers' Union, and he will be instrumental in helping control the County Budget, and in finding waste - as well as in exposing past misdeeds.
Once again, the Scout Oath and Law come into play, as these are tenets by which Tracy lives his life, both personally and professionally.
Scott Neuman and I have known one another for over two decades. Scott is highly intelligent, and is an entreprenuer who runs two successful businesses. His understanding of the workings of Ocean County Politics will be a huge asset in his service as Freeholder. He is a respected independent who has been actively courted by the County "establishment" in the past (as has Tracy). They chose us as much as we chose them...and for the same reasons.
All four of these candidates were hand-picked because of their character.
Q: Tell me about your Article the First lawsuit. What made you pursue this?
A: We are pursuing it because it is the TRUTH. Many people claim to be patriots. Ask any of my friends or acquaintances. I don't just talk the talk. I believe that the Constitution will be our salvation, but only insofar as it is applied, and protected. That document, and the ideas it contains, are sacrosanct to me. We initially planned to follow Greg Watson's lead (the Watson Amendment, 27th, derived from Article the Second), and obtain ratification from 28 of the smaller States all disenfranchised by the present UNCONSTITUTIONAL apportionment of the House.
Early on, however, our research indicated that there was a possibility that Article the First had, in fact, been ratified already. It made no sense that FOUR of the then fifteen States took no action whatsoever...especially Delaware and Connecticut, from where three of the six members of the committee that made the last minute changes to the "Articles of Amendment" (The Bill of Rights) came.
Further, in this research, we discovered WHY the language was believed to be defective. The TRUE language voted in the House and Senate is recorded in the papers of Oliver Ellsworth, reads exactly as we say it does, and means what we said it meant. All is explained in the suit. NationalTruth.org has the documents and the certified true copies of the Connecticut and Kentucky ratifications.
The COPIES transmitted to the States had several Scrivener's Errors, but the most egregious defeated the original purpose of Article the First. Incidentally, it was FIRST because it was deemed most important. That's right, this and Article the Second preceded our own present day ["First Amendment"] Rights. Extensive research has so far uncovered the actual ratification votes of two of the four "missings," Kentucky and Connecticut. This meant that, when there were fifteen States, TWELVE had ratified Article the First...80 percent, which is certainly more than the required 75 percent for an amendment to become law.
The story behind this, and the potential active concealment of passage that followed, are all in the upcoming book, "National Truth." In other words, we didn't need to seek ratification...it had already happened 220 years ago.
We are fighting to make sure that this Constitutional Amendment, which supercedes present apportionment legislation, is applied instead. Doing so will offer many advantages to We, the People...all enumerated in the upcoming book, "National Truth."
Q: On your Facebook page, you describe yourself as a Conservative Constitutionalist, but with liberal leanings as concerns the rights of others. Explain.
A: This would define a "Democratic-Republican".
Q: I noticed you mentioned censoring, gun control and more on your Facebook page. What are some of the major issues that you are running on?
A: Each of us in the Democratic-Republican party may have differing views on those issues not directly related to the offices they seek. Where do we stand on a given issue? Refer to the Constitution first in all matters, and you will know where we stand. Our platform is primarily to promote the application and protection of the Constitution as it is, and to restore the Congress to it's rightful place as "The People's House."
The Constitution is not meant to be a limitation of our freedoms, but, rather, a bit in the mouth of government, by which the people may lead it.
The press keeps wanting to make the campaigns about "abortion" or "same-sex marriage," all the while ignoring the economy and unemployment...because, in our present situation, neither party wants the people to know what's really going on.
Issues we are working on? Addressing the Citizen's United decision (you'll love what's coming on that one - visit ChangetheRulesPledge.org), repealing the present version of ACA in favor of a more fiscally responsible plan, and much more...I will explain that in a different paper.
I am willing to bet that I'm the only one in my Congressional Race that actually read the 2700-plus page bill - repeatedly. (truth is, it is a lot of "lawyers translating English into English")
Locally, we will also be conducting an audit of past expenses and programs within the district, at all government levels, using OPRA and FOIA requests, to seek out any graft and corruption from past administrations, and taking appropriate action. We're working on several other items, related to job-creation, alternative energy applications, infrastructure and environmental protection/remediation. These are more "local" issues. (That may lead to some incumbent animosity...)
Q: What are your thoughts on your competition?
A: I want to make one thing abundantly clear - I am not running "against" anyone. I am applying for the job, and I believe I am the best qualified candidate.
I am disappointed that Ms. Adler has so far basically decided to avoid any issues related to the economy and to only throw stones at her Republican Opponent. I would be genuinely surprised to see them debate. I expected better from her. I believe she is really only a "place-holder," and will look forward to a nice "appointment" after the election is over, having been run as a sacrificial lamb. If she really intended to try to win in a largely Republican District, she doesn't seem to be doing much to let anyone know why they should elect her, other than that she's her husband's widow, and she's not Jon Runyan. "Shelley good - Jon bad" is not a viable strategy.
Mr. Runyan seems affable enough. I've met him a few times, although I highly doubt he will remember it. He's apparently a decent family man...as am I. I am sure he is a great guy to have a beer with. What I don't see is any coloring outside the lines on his part with respect to specific issues. He does what he's told...nothing more. I don't see him as a leader. I see him as a "name." Apparently, so does his own party, as he had several challengers in the primary. He and I disagree on many things, and he enjoys corporate support because of how he votes - or is how he votes because he enjoys corporate support?
We're not electing a class president, or a homecoming king. We're sending someone to Congress to represent the PEOPLE of the district. Liking somebody personally should not be the only criteria for pulling their lever in the voting booth. One of my friend's sons put it best...(from the standpoint of the two major parties) "This election is like watching a re-run of the Brady Bunch, where Marsha and Greg run against each other for Student Council President."
We can't let this be a "TV-land" election. It is unfortunate that there are no other serious contenders in the independent candidates, although Robert Witterschein from Brick has caught some limited internet attention here earlier in the year. I have spoken at length with Robert, and look forward to working with him after the election to help him build real support, because, when we prevail on Article the First, he may have a real chance to be elected to Congress in the next cycle.
The rest are primarily unknown and unheard from...except, of course for Mr. Forchion, who is running as "NJ Weedman," again.
Q: How is fundraising going?
A: As I often joke, "We're not raising money, we're raising eyebrows." Frankly, we're not buying yard signs, or spending money on junk mail ("killing trees", as some call it). We're using shoe-leather and electrons to raise awareness of our candidacy, and we're out there promulgating real change, not perceived change. (such as that which we're promoting in our present litigation).
In other words, we're not raising money. If someone wants to tell a friend about us, they will.
Corporate dollars = later access, whether the candidate knows this or not.
I can not imagine the disappointment of a freshman Party Congressman the day after the election, when it's time for the "Come to Jesus" meeting with the people who REALLY run things on their side of the aisle.
Might be a good question to ask Mr. Runyan..."How did that feel?"
So far, we've spent a little under $1,000 collectively, including fuel/tolls...in fact, that's almost all of what it was spent on. We won't be deducting it, either - all "post-tax" dollars, though. It's not that we are averse to raising money - it's that we're adverse to expectations of undue influence.
Meanwhile, my major party opponents have raised millions - what for? Yard signs?
Q: What does your support look like?
A: If you were to give me fifteen minutes in a room full of people, I would be able to prove to you that most folks are with us, if they didn't know it before we started. We believe that personal and States' rights are protected by the Constitution, not regulated by them, and that the artificially promoted and preserved two-party dog and pony show is probably the second greatest enemy of real progress.
The first is, sadly, voter apathy. Too many good people have realized that, under the present system, their views, opinions, even needs, are of no real consequence, unless they help further aparty agenda...and they've all but given up on an expectation of true representation. What we've done with the Apportionment Amendment and other upcoming lawsuits and proposed legislation is proof positive that the values we represent are our last, best chance at restoring our Nation.
As to the two-party system, there's an old saying that applies well, here. "Keep doing what you're doing, and you keep getting what you've got." IF we allow ourselves to be led down the present path, we may reach a point where recovery becomes impossible.
People are fed up...tired of the "Two-Horse Race."
Q: Tell me some positive experiences you’ve had during your campaign.
A: The most positive experiences came in getting the ballot petitions completed, One-on-One or in small groups, discussing what's important to the people of the district. MOST people "get it," and very quickly, when we explain where we stand and what we're doing.
Q: Any challenges?
A: Nothing we're not strong enough to overcome. All part of the journey.
Media black-outs on our lawsuits and candidacy are the primary hurdles.
Q: Will you be holding any events?
A: Oral Arguments are scheduled on "LaVergne v. Bryson, et al" in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals for Friday, Sep. 14. That's the suit compelling recognition of the historical fact of the ratification of the Apportionment amendment ("Article the First"), and demanding it's application in the apportionment of the House of Representatives. Depending on the Court's Actions this week, we have a permit for a rally at Independence Mall in Philadelphia with respect to the lawsuit and to introduce our proposal that legally emasculates the "Citizens United" decision. We are working with "Madison Rising" for a possible rally/concert in NYC in front of Federal Hall to celebrate the proposal of the "Articles of Amendment." Other events and lectures are being planned at college campuses around the whole State. There's more, but this is not the place for announcing them.
Q: Please provide a photo of yourself.
A: What, and break your monitor? I have a great face for radio, but you asked for it...I had my son take that with my cell phone. It will have to do. I don't have professional headshots. If I were vain, I would dress nicer.