I answered all questions of this silly survey truthfully to the best that I could under circumstances. I had two weeks to think about it but like always I rushed to put this out. If I did take a more in breadth time to answer much more in detail than certainly I would have put any reader to sleep. I'll be honest that I'm not fully aware to be completely informed on some issues while being very knowledgeable on others. On the survey, I'm given three choices - Yes, No, and Undecided. Whatever answer I gave, know that many are not as clear cut, there's plenty of grey areas do to being a more complicated issue. Some of my answers may come off as anti-American or anti-military an anti-war tree hugger. Don't think this for I'm far far from it. I just like to point facts people tend to either ignore or have never been aware of. I'm supposed to return this survey within 7 days and I still haven't decided to, even though I really want append a letter ripping the RNC apart on every one of these questions in my own special way.  2009 RNC Survey Idiocy, Part 1 along with full size documents can found here.




ECONOMIC ISSUES
1. Should we unite as a Party to oppose President Obama's huge tax increase on the American people, particularly the new tax on dividends, capital gains and small businesses?

Yes for small businesses, but I know what you mean by "on the American people". You're talking about those who earn far more than what the average American earns. Most tax incentive and loop hole since Reagan are geared for those whose incomes well into six figures and beyond. They have the most to take gain while leaving the average American taxpayer with little to take advantage of. Rich gets richer, awarded with more awards while the poor get poorer and beaten down further. Many forced into debt.  Without you fudging the numbers, what Obama proposed during his 2008 election, the avg. American would have seen an reduction of taxes while the off-setting this with a increased tax on upper middle class and the wealthy. This could change because of the recession where a very small or moderate tax even on the average taxpayer may be needed to fund future fiscal budgets.  Answer: No

2. Should the Democrats' so-called Stimulus Bill with its wasteful pork-barrel spending be repealed?

Yes, if Republicans also get real and end their own wasteful pork-barrel spending. Also add an end to earmarks.  Answer:  Yes

3. Should we oppose the federal government bailout of private companies?

Yes, only if you also end subsidies, end grants to companies who outsource and ship American jobs overseas, and stop the Dept. of Commerce and the FTC from doing more harm to the American consumer. Yes I know, it's the objective of the Dept. of Commerce or the FTC to only further the objectives of American companies and could care less about American consumers but I just want to put it in.  Answer:  Yes

4. Should Republicans in Congress work to expose and eliminate new spending from Obama/Pelosi/Reid that amounts to welfare payments for Democrat interest groups?

Yes, if you'll end tax loop holes for individuals earning more than $180,000 per year.  Oh and Republican interest groups.  Answer:  No

5. Do you oppose the Obama National Energy Tax, also known as "cap and trade," which would skyrocket your utility bills and destroy jobs while having no impact on the environment?

Yes, as much that I am for the environment, I will agree this could substantially increase the cost of energy passed on to the consumer. BUT I will disagree "cap and trade" will destroy jobs. Given how green energy jobs could be the catalyst make and add new jobs to the economy just like how the internet has done for the Information Age. It's the new Green Age has already started. That's if everyone get their act together and be serious about it. And really, since when has Republicans cared much for the environment? Every piece of new legislation proposed to strengthen environmental laws gets shot down down by you. Look at who's deeply entrenched with big industry's hand in your pocket.  Answer:  Undecided


DOMESTIC ISSUES
1. Do you oppose the Obama-Pelosi health care takeover plan that would Washington bureaucrats between doctors and patients, ration medical treatment and deny critical care while skyrocketing the national debt?

No I certainly do not. This is more fear monging from you that big government will have a hand into to people's choices to doctors, needed treatment and critical care. The truth is private health insurance companies and HMO's are already doing this. How many times have you heard personally, on the news or from your voters about stories where people have been denied to coverage to treatment? Plenty right? I would be against a Government solution to compete with the private industry only if tougher more stringent laws are enacted to ensure all Americans have the right access health care and at an affordable cost. Look at countries with affordable health care, all have heavy handed governments who direct cost and policy.  Answer:  No

2. Would you support health care reforms that lower the costs and improve care by bringing in more competition and choice into the health insurance market while cracking down on predatory lawsuits against doctors and hospitals?

Yes, that sounds like a nice ring doesn't it? To "support health care reforms that lower the costs and improve care by bringing in more competition and choice into the health insurance market". Unfortunately I have to tell you this... there already IS competition when it comes to choice of health insurance for the American people!

I don't like predatory lawsuits against doctors and hospitals but ambulance chasers are not the majority of those who file medical malpractice lawsuits. Having a $200,000-250,000 dollar cap on settlements is a slap to the face of every patient or victim who have been legitimately wronged. In many cases, treatment and rehabilitation from the the result of a medical mishap will last a lifetime and cost millions if not 10 of millions of dollars. Where is your sense of compassion? Are you telling me, you're going to short change yourself or someone you know or love if something wrong happens from a medical procedure. Accidents due happen, things can go wrong resulting in injury or death but some are lawsuits warrant a high award, some do not. That is why the court system is there for to take a case by case basis and for a jury to decide what is appropriate compensation.   Answer:  Undecided

3. Do you agree that we must stop illegal immigrants?

Yes, this is a no brainer but for decades both Republicans and Democrats have been foot dragging on this issue. You talk tough but have not been serious even now. Both you and the Democrats hardly do anything to crack down on one of the factors that bring them here. Textile, agriculture, food, construction, these are the industries who regularly employ illegal immigrants. Former Mexican President Vincente Fox is right, Americans do not want to work the low wage jobs illegals go for. It's all about supply and demand.   Answer:  No

4. Do you oppose so-called "card-check" legislation, which eliminates secret ballot elections during unionizing drives and makes it easier for labor bosses to organize?

Hah wadya look at that. A topic I can agree on. In many areas I'm against unions but there are instances like how it was in the past where unions fought for their members to have decent wages and benefits. I'm not arguing about this or against allowing labor bosses to easily organize a union. I just don't not like the elimination of secret balloting. This can be dangerous if a worker is known to have a view of disagreement with his/her fellow workers to unionize resulting in harassment, coercion, intimidation, and threats.  Answer:  Yes

5. Should we do everything we can to stop Democrats from using the so-called "fairness doctrine" to shut down conservative talk radio show?

I'm not too worried about this since it would be against the First Amendment of the Constitution to free speech. But I would like to see a the FCC pull the license or heavily fine radio stations who have shows that continuously mislead the public, which is not illegal but insinuating hate and violence is. More often than not conservative radio does this regularly. And the Fox News Channel is incredibly unbelievable for having a partisan view so egregious that word "news" should be dropped and changed to entertainment instead. It has never been "fair and balance".  Answer:  No

6. Should we resist Barack Obama's proposal to spend billions of federal taxpayer dollars to pay "volunteers" to perform his chosen tasks?

A.C.O.R.N. still getting your panties in a twist eh? But really look at how stupid this question is worded. You might as well also say those who choose to enlist into the military voluntarily are also part of Obama's evil agendas.  Answer:  No


FAMILY AND SOCIAL ISSUES
1. President Obama recently signed an executive order mandating taxpayer dollars be spent pay for abortions in foreign countries. Should Republicans pass legislation to repeal executive order?

Abortions is but a tiny issue within a larger broader aid package to help foreign countries. There is no reason to think there will be a systematic use for abortions. If you along with your conservative constituents think all life is precious than why not for the same when a 2000 lb laser guided bomb hits the house of a suspected terrorist leader who intelligence believes to be occupying only he wasn't there at the time of the strike. The result of the blast puts a 50 ft wide by 20 ft. crater and instantly killing innocent civilians who were unaware a terrorist leader was nearby or had anything to do with him. Surely this has to be equal to sanctioned killing just as an abortion is. I so no difference when it comes to ending life, killing is killing regardless.  Answer:  No

2. Should Republicans fight against judicial nominees who bring personal, left-wing agenda on social issues to their jobs as judges?

No more than Democrats who should fight against judicial nominees who bring personal, right-wing agenda on social issues to their jobs as judges. This is ludicrous, judges are by proclamation to have an impartial stand. More should be paid attention to whether a judicial nominee is qualified to judge instead of concentrating on whether or not a he/she fits your or their own party agenda

By the way, hahaha... just as the Democrats couldn't invalidate Roberts, you couldn't find anything wrong with Sotomayor!.   Answer:  No

3. Do you want us to defend partial-birth abortion ban from attacks by the new Democrat majority?

If you really want to then go ahead. It doe not change the law to allow full abortions.  Answer:  Undecided


HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES
1. If Barack Obama tries to gut the USA PATRIOT Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?

Now this the real reason the Republican leadership are idiots. The Patriot Act (I like how you capitalized it) has nothing to do with being patriotic. Liberty and freedom is what is conjured when mentioning patriotism but instead we get domestic spying... oops I mean "domestic monitoring". Oh which by the way your own constituency fears. Let me make this clear for you... FEAR!  It is considered un-American and another big brother reason to lesson out Constitutional rights. (See toward the bottom of this survey)  Answer: NO

2. Should we stop Democrat leaders from cutting funding from our intelligence agencies or bringing back Clinton-era restrictions on inter-agency communications?

This is an interesting worded question. Do mean restrictions to illegally wiretap and monitor communications of us Americans on our internet traffic, and phone conversations as what the Patriot Act currently does... unconstitutionally in my opinion? Or do you really mean the streamlining of inter-agency communications and inter rid of inter-agency rivalries between the HLS-NSA-CIA-FBI-DEA-etc-etc-etc-etc? Please be a little more specific.  Answer:  Undecided

3. Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid individuals or organizations committed to further attacks on America?

Yes because we do this on a regular basis despite that most of the time, it violates international laws. Laws I might add, this nation help pass. But who cares, we never cared in the past or now.  Answer:  Yes

4. Should we unite in support of full funding for border and port security when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try make cuts in these areas?

Like Republicans have really been in full support of this issue. Please tell the real truth, it's not just Democrats.  Answer:  Yes

5. Are you in favor of a space-based defense system to protect America from intercontinental ballistic missiles?

STAR WARS II is cool! But I'm undecided with this issue. Though there has been great strides in SDI over the decades, a anti-ballistic shield / ABM (anti-ballistic missile) still has not been successful and way over budget.

Diplomacy is the best policy against the proliferation of nuclear ballistic technology. All you have to do is look back in time when Gorbachev proposed to Reagan on the INF treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Reagan balked at this and instead an agreement was to draw back the number of ICBMs. Gorbachev was serious about it back then as do what the current Russian policy is today.

Right now the Obama administration has already renegotiated a new treaty with Medvedev to reduce the number of deployed warheads before the START-I treaty expires this coming December 5th. But the there is a difference during negotiations of how the elimination of nuclear arms is interpreted. Russians see it as destroying both weapons grade material and their delivery vehicles has to oppose to our interpretation. Which is only to remove fissionable material from the delivery vehicles. Still a compromise was made to reduce the number of missiles if it this is considered lip service. This is how analysts explained it who I've watched; I think the show is called "Dialogue" from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Yes, Russia still will be modernizing their aging nuclear missiles but I think they will take a serious consideration to actually eliminating their entire nuclear arsenal if it was proposed that we do the same. An act with two largest nations eliminating their arsenals will have a far greater impression on keeping Iran or North Korea from further developing nuclear weapons. And I think a far greater impact to China, India, and Pakistan. The U.K. and France should follow suit but Israel may be a tough sell.

Shouldn't this belong under the category DEFENSE ISSUES?   Answer:  No

DEFENSE ISSUES
1. Should we stop any effort to have U.S. troops serve under United Nations' commanders?

This is a non issue. The last time I checked where a major number of American troops where under a U.N. commander, it was in Somalia. I'm not including the few dozen American observers on on some remote outpost in the Sinai peninsula. The commander was a Pakistani general and we all know what turned out when American Special Forces and UN troops from other nations tried to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. 19 Americans died in this failed operation. This wasn't the U.N.'s fault nor the Pakistani General but solely placed on the CIA and U.S. military commanders who conceived this ill advised plan.

The fear is not with UN commanders or UN troops. Foremost they are soldiers who will if ordered, fight, defend, or die trying. But this isn't the main role of peace keeping. Apprehension has to do more  with top UN leadership to reluctantly to have UN troops take a more heavy militaristic role like what NATO forces are doing in Afghanistan.

We hate not being militaristic don't we? We don't like the words "peace keeping", Republicans never have because it warrants to also nation building and being involved into the domestic affairs. But what the hell are we doing in Iraq and Afghanistan without donning a blue helmets.  Answer:  No

2. Do you agree that our top military priority should be fighting terrorists?

Yes. Is that it, only terrorists? Why not the Mexican and Drug Cartels? They are more of a threat to tens millions of Americans whose appetite for their products... no excuse me, their drugs is insatiable. Now they have brought their violence and kidnappings for ransom over our borders and into the heartland of America. They not foreign or domestic terrorists are the number one threat to Americans.  Answer:  Undecided

3. Should we fight military-cutting efforts in Congress, such as the proposal from liberal Barney Frank to slash to the Pentagon budget by 25%?

Only singling out Barney Frank and adding liberal is funny one. Ron Paul who I and many Americans consider to be a REAL REPUBLICAN would have proposed a much higher cut out the budget. The 2009 fiscal defense budget is $518.3 Billion, if slashing 25% were to occur than it will bring it back to near 2004 levels (around $380 Billion). Since it is Obama's policy and Bush's to fully withdraw our troops from Iraq as agreed with their government, then I can see this as a natural progression in defense spending as there will be one major theater of combat in the world mainly in Afghanistan.  Answer:  Undecided

4. Should Republicans continue support the State of Israel?

Why duh of course, Israel is and will always be our ally. But you cannot skirt the issue when comes to the hypocrisy of Israeli policy. They have the right to defend themselves as any nation should. Agreed Hamas and Hezbolah are considered terrorists groups and we don't negotiate with terrorist but they are also democratically elected political organizations.

However where is your reaction to Israel not returning the West Bank back to Jordan? The United Nations and every country including our own has never recognized this to be Israeli territory. What is to be said for building current and new Israeli settlements into the West Bank made possible by ethnic cleansing. Bulldozing Palestinian homes and  building a 30 ft wall which is strange that you haven't made a comparison to Berlin. True the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in and running away from oppression. But keeping people out from easily buying food, going to school, work, or to the hospital without traveling for miles to the nearest open check point is equally bad.  Answer:  Undecided

5. Even though Barack Obama pledged to meet personally with the likes of Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadjinedad, should Republicans continue to focus on supporting democratic movements in oppressive states like Cuba, Venezuela and Iran?

Yes like we currently support very small democratic movements in many other oppressive states that do not get as much media coverage. Please, where was the concern from both Republicans and Democrats when the United States backed military juntas since the 1950's all the way into the 1990's from SE Asia to Central & South America? Have you heard from the hundreds of thousands if not millions of our victims? 

Like I said, there are many states whom the United States support but are oppressing  small democratic movements. It's the same old same old, in the past we allied and supported dictators because they were anti-communists. Now we support dictators because they are anti-terrorists and allows the U.S. full access to their military air bases.  Answer:  Yes


REPUBLICAN PARTY
1. a. Did you vote in 2004?  As a Republican or for a Republican candidate? Then the answer is NO.
    b. Did you vote in 2006?  As a Republican or for a Republican candidate? Then the answer is NO.
    c. Did you vote in 2008?  As a Republican or for a Republican candidate? Then the answer is NO.

2. Do you support the election of Republican candidates across the country and the rebuilding of our majorities over the next 10 years?  Only moderate Republicans who have their heads screwed on correctly like Ron Paul but their numbers are getting rarer.

3. Will you join the Republican National Committee by making a contribution today?
     Yes, I support the RNC and am enclosing my most generous contribution of:  $500   $250   $ 100**   $50  $35  $25  Other  $____
      ** A gift in this amount pays to mail 239 more CENSUS DOCUMENTS to registered Republicans.
     Please make your personal check payable to:  RNC  310 First St., SE  Washington DC  20003   www.GOP.com/2009Census
     Contributions or gifts to the RNC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

     Yes, I support the RNC, but I am unable to participate at this time. However, I have enclosed $12 to cover the cost of tabulating my survey.
  
     No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years.

     My choice - I choose for those who I see fit to vote for regardless of party affiliation.

SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR RNC MEMBERS ONLY (Your gift today makes you a member in good standing of the RNC.)
Which part of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda do you most forcefully oppose?
Government-run health care
Massive tax hikes
Left-wing activist judges
Legalize partial-birth abortion
National Energy Tax (cap and trade)
Expand federal power and wasteful spending
Job-killing regulations on small businesses
Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act     <<<<< Please read question 1. under HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES and then laugh.
Other _____________________________