Candidate Declaration: Odium, Socialist

You do not remove it from the Social System/Government System. You instead remove it from the management pay-checks. It is basically a way to regulate salery and income of those in charge of the Social System and it is a method already used in both Sweden and Switzerland and found to be very productive.

Basically it works like this:

You become a manager of X Government Industry and Start on pay grade 1. If you reach the targets you move up to pay grade 2 if you don't you move to 0. If you ever hit paid grade -1 you are sacked.

The system itself isn't something I created but something that has been used for over 30 years now in several countries. It does work and it means the management are the ones to blame if something goes wrong - like they should be.

Apart from some generalized grants, the government can not
constiutionally fund religious schools, as it is a violation fo church
and state.
Even if the government created a school based around every religion
there is, it would still go against speration fo church and state.





I have to say I fully agree with you on that, in fact, I think you are
the only candidate so far who has said it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

1) We are not removing the free exercise of the Religion.
2) We are not making a law that establishes any single religion.

The whole idea of Separation of Church and State is misunderstood by many individual in contemporary society the best way to understand why it was put in place is to look at some of the letters Thomas Jefferson sent to people in the early 1800’s – examples being to Danbury Baptists:



The whole term “establishment of religion” was to not create a State based Religion it has nothing to do with the Government giving money to any single religious organization and it is a vast judicial mistake to have made it that way which is in direct contradiction to what the Founding Fathers actually had intended.

As long as the system is fair and it would be (as I’ll outline below) it does not go against the constitution it is in fact court cases like Reynolds v. United States that are heavily unconstitutional, just like Everson v. Board of Education is – which would be the direct piece of legislation you’d now be thinking of. (Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.) But this is exceptionally idiotic and needs to be repelled.

Take for example a simple system where those with children can put down their name for any religious organization. So for example you have 1,000,000 Christians, 200,000 Muslims and so on and so fourth. As long as each of their taxation is individually sent to the educational institute to fund the teaching the Government is not making the establishment of Religion – they are not making one Religion above another just because the Nation has more follows of that single religion. If there is not a Religious School in the area (local enough) than the money instead goes to the State Educational Facilities. However this is a short-term measure.

The long term measure would be to remove Religious education completely and instead allow children a place to pray, worship, etcetera inside of the educational facilities that already exist and thus to begin to include everyone and to get them to mix – but this would be a much longer term initiative. It is a worrying trend that people are so anti-religion that they see a single cent of Government money going to them and they cry “First Amendment”. A lot of European Nations are able to have State Schools and Religious Schools funded by the Government without any harm being done and without having to support a single religion over any other.

What is your position & strategy on institutional corruption, organized crime, and illicit drugs? Thanks.

Thank you for asking these questions.



By Institutional Corruption I presume you mean Government corruption. Government Corruption can come in these main forms: bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. I hold rather a simple view on this: If a Government Official is taking money in return for favours (where by he is puttting a single person or company ahead of his electeret) this is paramount to treason and should be treated as so. In many cases what happened (end product of his corruption) is what he will be tried for.

For example: If I take money to pass a bill through for the sale of weapons to another country. These weapons result in the deaths of people – you are then tried for the murder of these people. Due to the fact that if you had not taken the money, than they’d still be alive. I can list various other examples if you’d like me to expand on this position further?



This depends on which aspect of Organized Crime.

Take prostitution for example and the vice industry, I believe that we need to legalize prostitution. Although I myself do not agree with the practice it is dangerous to keep it how it is. If we regulate it, keep it in a controlled-safe-environment we can have mandatory testing on both participants as well as increased revenue from taxation and other sources.

People smuggling, etcetera we need to fall down on hard. I believe if someone is to be found as a member of a gang or criminal syndicate than we need to have an increased level of punishment for those offenders. They have the intent to cause crimes and to do as much damage to society as possible and due to this deserve more severe punishment. However, we also need to look at the social problems with criminals. Many of these gangs such as the Mafia originated due to the inability for different cultures to mix when the USA was originally being settled by European Members – the lack of inclusion forced them to unite and to protect one another. This of course gave rise to “minor gangs” who would “protect” local areas and then this become protection rackets and so on and so fourth. The same can in some regards be said about groups like MS-13 who have came to America to make money but due to the inability for them to fit into society (lack of education, language barriers) they unite and commit criminal action. Things such as education inside of prisons (that is mandatory to be passed before they can leave (English, maths, core skills) could help remove some of these problems.)



Drugs I believe need to be looked at and a real solution to them has to be found.

At present the policy of illegal drugs does not help to make the problem go away, the USA has a large border with Canada, Mexico and a lot of places where boats can land illegally for drugs to get into the Nation along with the ability for drugs to be grown. Thus it is likely that drugs will never be removed from society fully – so the best bet is to find a policy where drugs can be controlled but legally. I myself like the idea of having toleration zones in larger cities where things such as marijuana can be bought but you have to place down your Name, Address and other key pieces of information. Then all money made from drugs goes directly into centres to re-habilitate people and the medical industry. Part of the problem with drugs is that we have given them creditability with the Younger Generation by making them illegal.

My policy is:
Legalize drugs to be taken in certain areas.
People must ascertain a Government form of identification to buy drugs.
A database for drug users, to keep on record of what drug was taken when and for all stores who sell to use this database.[1]
An age limit of 21 for hard drugs and 16 for softer forms of drugs before they can be purchased.
Specialist licences to sell drugs on the premises.
Constant checks made to stores, clubs, etcetera who sell drugs.
Testing of drugs to make sure they are clean and thus less likely to cause harm.

[1] You swipe card in. Card records who purchased what drug and when. It flags up large and constant purchases and then people can look into this.

Where do professional athletes, musicians and those in the arts fit on your wage scale?

Thank you for taking the time out to ask these questions.

Sorry about the delay in my reply, I have however been unfortunately ill.

I will break down your question into three parts, based upon the different groups you’ve mentioned.

Professional Athletes: These will earn a salary dependent on several factors, these include the position their respective team finish in within the league, a percentage of ticket sales from their home stadium and the number of games they play in. The percentage they earn will thus be dependent on the club they are in, so the larger clubs with more seats will thus be able to pay the players more but the players will only earn this money once all over-heads are covered.

Furthermore, their will be a price placed upon the tickets so as not to exclude the poorest people the chance to watch the games and not allow teams to increase prices so that their players earn exceptionally high amounts.

I myself see a large problem with sports in general, there’s no reason as to why someone who plays a game – which many find enjoyable as a hobby – while those who enjoy it have to slave in factories and so on and so fourth. These people should be enjoying the fact that the job they are doing is fun, even with all the pressure placed on them and they do not need to earn millions of dollars a week.

Musicians: They gain a percentage of their album sales and ticket sales, after all overheads are covered. But the ticket prices should not be overly expensive. The better more popular musicians will still earn more because they will be able to sell more tickets and more albums. Furthermore it is fair on the consumer and each individual artist as they will all get the same percentage.

Artists: They will gain a value based on ticket sales of exhibitions and furthermore of each individual piece of art. However art will be sold in an auction fashion, due to its nature and inability to be easily mass-produced. If said art is mass-produced, such as CD covers they will gain a percentage dependent on each CD sold and so on for the type of media the image is sold in.

Any other questions or would you like me to elaborate further?

I have two days free, so I am able to give more detailed answers on anything that interests you guys. Let me know no matter what the question is and what the topic is.

What would your administration do to help its ally, the UK, if faced with the issue that British troops have been taken prisoner by Iran? while supporting operations in Iraq?

Absolutely nothing.

If the USA had taken a group of Iranian Military Officers captive, would they listen to Syria? Of course not. Would they listen to Hamas? Of course not.

This is something the British and Iranian Governments need to work out on their own, through diplomatic channels. The more the U.S.A. gets involved the worse things will be - the further they will push the Iranians away from the path of diplomacy and towards the hard-line elements who want a war.

So can I assume that the relationship built up between the US and the UK since the end of WWII is of little worth to your adminstration. How would you expect to influence other countries if your allies feels left out to dry when they need support?

The President of the USA should put his Nations interests first. Just like the PM of the U.K. should put his Nations interests first.



That's the problem, we shouldn't be going around trying to influence other Nations. What honestly can the U.S.A. say to IRan which will help the situation? Nothing.

Iran likes to act as though it is being bullied. It likes to paint the U.S.A. as the "Big Bad Zionist Wolf" and if the U.S.A. turns around and starts ordering Iran about they'll do the opposite. When have they done what the U.S.A. wanted? As President, I'd hope the British would be able to elect someone who would be able to solve this through diplomatic means. I'd rather not live in a Nation where we need constant protection from the U.S.A. and we need them to influence other Nations for us. Otherwise we might as well become another state in the U.K.

Supreme Court of the United States

The Judiciary of the United States of America, is something I myself think needs to evolve. Although not at the lower levels (Below Federal). However, it can be seen that if a political party is able to gain power for an extended period of time they are able to cause many problems – including the filling of the Supreme Court with people who support their ideas over what is best for the U.S.A. as a whole.

Thus the new system I suggest is simple:

It will work similar to how a Jury is selected; all Judges who meet a set criterion will be entered into a database. This database will then pick out 8 people at random. These people will work exactly the same as how the normal Associate Justices work. The Chief Justice, will be on a 4 year term which co-insides with the Presidential election and will be named on the Presidential ballot. Furthermore on complex issues, two lay people with specialist knowledge will be selected.

The criteria for selection is outlined below:
Must have been a Judge for 5 years in any of these courts:
United States district courts (or above)
State Supreme Court (or above)

Now here is the major change.

Once someone has gained a degree in Law, they will either go on to become a Lawyer or a Judge. There will be a different set of training depending on which, along with a period of 1 year (shadowing) of a judge prior to becoming one. The training period will take at least two years but no more than 4 and they will be placed into the lowest court.

The reason for doing this is simple – age. Far too many judges are “out of touch” with reality, like it or not. They need to represent the people and after being a practicing lawyer for 10+ years before becoming a judge. Meaning many of these people are in their mid to late 30’s, if not older (more often than not 40’s) and can cause more harm than good.