25 Pro-democracy goals

Pro-Democracy Goals

We are not only against tyranny

We are also for a just and honest society

We believe the principals stated here-in will begin us on a road to a future that is sustainable and responsible to our grandchildren and their grandchildren

If you, as a candidate for office, want my vote you must agree to these goals and speak about them openly

If you do you will have my voteIntroduction

It is our opinion that our current political situation is the result of many years of assault on equality and justice and the democratic process in our country. Also, that in order to remain free and involved in a strong democracy founded on equality and the rule of law, we must periodically evaluate and restate our collective goals and the principals by which we live and govern ourselves.

In this effort we must strive to be inclusive but also specific. We must not allow ourselves to be consumed by opposition but rather to also pursue our goals directly and aggressively. To this end this document strives to detail the goals we seek without concern for how those goals will be accomplished but in the faith that if our goals are clear and agreed upon we will by the nature of true democracy itself move closer to that accomplishment with every choice we make.

The goals stated herein are placed in an order that reflects a realistic assessment of what must come first for the other goals to follow. It is also understood that many of the items that appear lower on the list of goals are also essential to our collective well being and success but that if these goals are addressed first, our system of government and the collective will cannot actually accomplish those goals because the foundation hasn’t been established. Thus, the order of the goals does not reflect priority or importance but rather the practical facts of what changes must come first for the others to follow.

About the first author

I believe that we need to come together around a very specific set of goals that our Pro-Democracy movement stands for. I am not a strict constitutionalist. I am not a fundamentalist. I recently read that Thomas Jefferson called for the constitution to be rewritten every twenty years. I don’t think that any form of written word can remain applicable over the longer reaches of time. Rather, I believe that fundamentalism whether religious or political will be manipulated by power bases and ultimately be used for purposes that were not intended but are the direct opposite of the original intent.

Personally, I consider myself more of a philosopher than a social activist. That said, I believe that social activism needs a philosophy and that the more developed and flexible that philosophy is the better the inclusion will become in the social activity.

It is my intention to remain anonymous. This is not a campaign of personalty but rather a sharing of ideals and goals with consideration of how these goals may be accomplished. This is the start of a process which I hope will come to include the ideas of many. We must, however, remain focused. It is not the intent of this document to solve all of our current problems or deal with each issue but rather to create an environment where those problems can be solved over time with due process without the resistance, divisiveness and confusion that now exists.

The re-election of Trump to the white house, in my view, was the escalation of a crisis that we have been experiencing in our government for decades. We all probably know the highlights that led up to this escalation. It is reasonable to understand that it began around the election of Regan but even that ignores the preceding fact that America was conducting ‘black ops’ around the world long before and therefore were not being transparent or clear or honest with our populous or with the world in general. When we decided we couldn’t act openly we created and justified a secrecy that many have now used to justify and obscure their actions. I’m sure there were reasons that seemed good at that time but here we are now when, ‘Truth’ has nearly become obsolete, hiding your real motives is simply expected and ‘Spin’ has replaced honesty. Certainly with Reagan and trickle down economics and the beginning of the Republican era of gerrymandering and voter suppression the crisis has been in full swing. Then of course there was Citizens United and the following deluge of big money buying politics which has now matured into E. Musk and Project 2025.

I have to admit that though I consider Project 2025 to be a travesty it is a written document behind which many individuals have gathered. I do not believe that these Project 2025 advocates constitute a majority nor do I believe that they have the best interests of the US as a whole in mind but they have done what I am attempting to do here and what I believe must be done for the majority of Americans to prevail and to live in a free and just society. That is: we must clearly state and agree upon our goals. Only then can we consistently and coherently work toward them.

Opposition is always easier than coming to agreement. Tearing down is always easier than building. However, these destructive actions do not bring us closer to what we want and need by themselves. Power is developed when we are not only opposing but also pursuing at the same time and with the same energy. Pro-Democracy Goals:

Each of these is detailed in its own section within the body of this work.

#1 Get the money out of politics

This means exactly what it says. Money whether personal or corporate needs to be removed from out politics in all its various ways of influencing elections, the passage of laws and the setting of policy. Only then will our representatives be able to work for us instead of money.

#2 Election Reform

This is the method of getting Goal #1 accomplished.

#3 Judicial Reform

Clearly, we need ethics to be cemented into our judicial process. It has been assumed as a gentleman’s contract, which, has now been violated completely. Judicial ethics needs to be law and needs a method of enforcement.

#4 Uniform Enforcement of Judicial Decisions

The decisions that our judges hand down need to be enforced at all levels regardless of whom they effect. We cannot have the rule of law unless we have clear and uniform enforcement methods.

#5 Term limits for all elected and appointed positions

In the past life term’s were expected to generate gentleman’s ethics. This is no longer true. Rather, life term’s are used to avoid ethics. This must end. The good thing about avoiding term limits is when a job or position requires so much experience that you don’t really get good at it for a while. Personally, I think this is more down further in the ranks than the elected or appointed positions but it is a significant issue to be discussed.

#6 Reform of Congress.

Likewise in Congress many of the processes that we depend on were not law rather they were a gentleman’s promise of good conduct. Too many methods of suborning and manipulating the process have developed such that the business of congress is aborted. Congress needs clear simple understandable rules in both houses. The business of congress is the business of our country and must not be held hostage to special interests.

#7 Realign foreign policy to support world wide democracy , cooperation and trade

This is the formal recognition that we live in a world where cooperation is required. Isolationism is neither in our best interests nor is it even possible.

#1 Get the money out of politics

Money must not be the basis of campaigns. It cannot be the reason candidates run for election and it cannot be the barrier that keeps other people from running. Currently, the first thing a potential candidate must do to enter the political arena is raise money. This ability to raise money is taken as the proof that the candidate is serious and can launch a significant campaign to enter office. This is a profound defect in our current system because it places control in the hands of the people who have the most money. Currently, as you know, over 50% of our national wealth is held in the hands of 1% of people. Further, there are fewer than 100 people who have so much wealth that hundreds of millions of dollars given to support candidates doesn’t even qualify as pocket change. To combat this a grass roots candidate, meaning a candidate that wants to be elected and govern on behalf of average people, that is the other 90%, has to raise equivalent money from small donations given by millions of people. The effort this takes, the time and energy, is many orders of magnitude more than the effort it takes to raise the same or more money from the small special interest group of the ultra-wealthy. This imbalance will ensure that our candidates are the individuals who are the best at selling themselves for money and therefore their actual political beliefs and agenda will always, of necessity be seconded to their ability to sell themselves for money. This is not in the public interest but it is in the interest of those few with excess money.

Therefore if we want a government of the people by the people then this system must be changed. The way to change it is through Election Reform (goal two). Election Reform is not the first goal but the first goal must be defined and agreed upon to enable its accomplishment by the second goal.

Both parties Republicans and Democrats and now the MAGA party are complicit in maintaining the role of money in politics. Those who are currently in office have played this game and likely want to continue to play it. They have been selected by the fact that they play the money game well. This cannot be done if, in fact, you don’t think money should have such a role in politics. This, clearly, is not what is said openly in the public arena. In fact, if a candidate admitted that he or she is primarily focused on raising money this would defeat their goal of getting elected. Thus this situation encourages and breeds lies. I would not expect many, or even any of those currently holding office, to be in favor of goal one much less the process of accomplishing it which is detailed in goal #2.

This is a primary challenge for the Pro-Democracy movement. The fact that our current representatives are unlikely to approve.

#2 Election Reform

Note that this goal is not just campaign finance reform nor is it just about gerrymandering or the electoral college. It is all these things and more.

Our elections have turned into a circus and as such they resemble entertainment more than political process. Political process is dry and boring. Doing the hard work of building coalitions and making compromises is dry, boring work. It is supposed to be. The lies and counterpoint that have become the staple of our elections is driven by the need to keep attention focused. This is the same need that the entertainment industry thrives upon. Therefore, our elections have become controlled, and dominated by an entertainment industry masquerading as news. The result is that the candidate that spends the most money wins almost every time. This is a well recorded fact (see Http//:Represent.us) and it is to the detriment of democracy.

The process and the scope of goal #2 Election Reform must accomplish goal #1 getting the money out of politics. Very recently we have seen some big money candidates defeated by those with less money. This is encouraging but it is driven by the fact that we are experiencing a crisis. Even in this case the fact that these events are reported not as a matter of opposing policy or belief but by the relative expense is evidence that the underlying problem of money driving our political process is clear and still dominate.

Therefore, our second goal of Election Reform includes Election Finance Reform which is its touch point with the first goal. And, Election Finance Reform doesn’t just call for revealing where all the money is coming from but rather reforming everything about where the money to run an election comes from. This includes the entire subject of the election process including choosing candidates, learning who those candidates are and what they stand for. It includes their campaign promises and all of their communications with us; the people whom they propose to represent. In includes a venue for us to communicate with them. It also includes the actual election apparatus. In order to accomplish goal #1 no private money can taint any part of the election process. This is the only real way of beginning the process of accomplishing goal #1 Getting The Money Out of Politics.

I think that in the case of this second goal the process, the how, needs to be stated to understand the goal fully. True election reform is defining the process of electing our officials in a way where money doesn’t control who we get to pick from or who eventually wins. To do this there has to be a predictable, standard method that we as, a country and as a people, follow to determine who runs, how they run, and who pays for it.

There needs to be some bar that has to be met to become a candidate regardless of the level of the position in question. Most likely this will be a number of people who say this guy/gal should run collected on a petition. I suggest this is done through a government web site where potential candidates can register such that people who support them can say so. Once a specific number of supporters are accumulated, access to the tools of the election framework are opened further to that candidate. This allows expanded capability for that candidate to communicate to the people he or she is attempting to represent. As the election process continues debates can be held through this government website and so on. All entries into the official election website will be fact checked and categorized as Truthful, Opinion or Untrue and the supporting data will be provided.

Clearly, this will take a lot of fleshing out but the central change stated in Goal #2 is that the government itself is responsible for running the election from start to finish and this is funded through a well defined process that uses our collective tax dollars to accomplish it. There are only two choices. Either private money supports the process and we are experiencing the results of that or public money supports the process and that means tax dollars.

Inevitably the issues of free speech will come into play when considering Goal #2. It is the position of the Pro-Democracy movement that lying, stating mis-leading information or including disinformation in your communication to voters is not covered by free speech privilege and is in fact illegal and punishable by removal from political candidacy and or office.

It may be impossible to keep the ‘entertainment news’ industry out of politics. This would require a mechanism to gag that industry and would constitute breach of free speech. A free and independent press is a goal in and of itself but is not a part of this document. This is because it is our choice to determine what we watch and what information sources we trust. Clearly Americans have become divided by a press who’s intent is to gain popularity at the cost of accuracy. Clearly, our current press both corporate and independent portrays their point of view claiming it is true and factual when often it is obviously not true or factual. It is true that these entertainment news providers are wealthy and can produce a product that is so slick and polished, so professional that the fact that they are lying is hard for the average person to determine. The notion that ‘they are all lying’ is not unsubstantiated.

The best we can hope for is a place where, although the presentation is dry and the entertainment value is low, we can trust the facts and read or see for ourselves what the evidence is. Surely the entertainment news will attack this in principal and will make great noise and commotion over who is correct. However, just as now they will do this with flash and polish and exclamation. We will come to know that these are the signs that we are being manipulated. Truth is boring and plain. Lies are entertaining and flashy. It will remain up to us if we choose to continue to be entertained or if we wish to be governed fairly and honestly.

The electoral college was originally created to ensure that those landed white men who enjoyed rural property ownership were not overwhelmed by those living in cities. It, however, has become a major tool for manipulating the outcomes of our elections allowing candidates to target specific areas to accumulate electoral college votes without the popular vote acting in accordance. It is true that without this mechanism, since now over half of our population lives in urban areas, a purely popular vote will favor cities. That said a democracy is a system of government that is intended to represent the simple majority of its constituents. Therefore, the electoral college and all its workings are disbanded and all elections will be carried by a simple majority of total votes.

It is likely that the system of ranked choice voting will further insure that the will of the people is expressed in all elections. This topic should be considered and decided upon in due course.

I would like now to address what I imagine will be the most common and loudest criticisms of these ideas.

People in general do not currently trust the government. There is a widespread belief that ‘Government can’t do anything efficiently or honestly. This is currently true to an extent. I don’t personally believe that it is quite as bad as most believe it is but it is surely true to an extent. The reason for this is ultimately because of the outsized role that money plays in our government. It is also because of the fact that the circus that surrounds our government requires subject matter to entertain us with. It is also due to the many years of government by money during which we have been lied to and cheated by a government who’s primary constituent is big money.

Therefore, in order to create and maintain faith in our government such that trust in government grows and become stable, all those involved in government at any level must agree to relinquish any and all rights to financial privacy. This condition of acting entirely outside of the influence of money must be proven constantly. Thus, all political candidates, all those currently in office or holding an appointed position, indeed all governmental personnel of all types must give up all rights to financial privacy. All of their income, associations, taxation, and resources must be revealed to the public before, during and after their tenure. There must be no evidence of gifts, promises, or any form of financial compensation outside of their government paid salary. Clearly no one who is motivated by money would agree to this. This is as we intend.

We want and need a government that we can trust. We want a government that we believe in. If we are not able to accomplish that then what are we doing? I assert and you will have to decide if you want a government where Goal #1 is accomplished by enacting Goal #2.

An objection will be raised regarding the sanity of free speech. However, lying while in public service regardless of the level of service or lying while running for public office is simply not tolerable. The general public cannot be expected to debunk every lie told and clearly we have learned that it is far easier to foment emotional responses by lying than it is by telling the truth. This simple fact outweighs the right of free speech in the case of those enjoying public service or who which to be considered for public service.

Another objection that has merit is that this idea depends on the internet and we have justifiably come to distrust the internet. Unfortunately, the internet seems to be an inescapable truth about our future as is the fact that all computer systems seem to be susceptible to hacking. I will assert that this is also ultimately about money. The motivation for most of the lying about politics on the internet and about the hacking of our election process is about money. We will have to work hard and be clear about how the internet is used and monitored but if we rule out use of the internet entirely we are in a sort of fantasy land,

A final note. There will be a tendency for money motivated candidates to appear and speak through venues that are commercial in nature (entertainment news). They may claim that the Government election system is unfair, rigged dishonest or any number of of things. To the extent that it is possible their statements on these venues will be fact checked on the government web site and that information will be available publicly and therefore to the journalists of commercial media. It should develop that those candidates that are honestly desiring to represent constituents and are uninfluenced by money will use the site but those who shun the site in favor creating a clamor on commercial venues are in fact not running in good faith and have money or the influence of money as their motivation. If we as a democratic populous allow ourselves to be deceived when the clear facts are available for our review including the background information that establishes those facts then we are simply lost. Democracy is work. Making it work is dependent on each of us. This is as it is intended.

The above exemption from the right of free speech will apply to all comments made by government officials, employees or candidate regardless of where those comments are made. As such, a candidate or representative of government who lies, promotes disinformation or misleads will be dismissed from their employment or candidacy.

As our current law stands, Free Speech is in fact not unlimited. Fomenting a riot, yelling fire in a public place are not examples of protected free speech. Under our Pro-Democracy goals lying in public service or as a candidate for public service falls under the category of fomenting a riot. In fact, we have seen that although it takes longer such lies told by public figures do in fact lead to riot. We have experienced this. It is also true that when a venue, in its title or representation uses the word ‘news’ and tells lies, twists or slants the truth, and uses the excuse that they are just an entertainment venue regardless of their title such venues do not have the privilege of free speech and cannot mislead the public under the cover of claiming to be ‘entertainment’. Such a venue is not allowed to use the word ‘news’ in any part of its title or self promotion. Rather, then must state clearly that what they offer is indeed entertainment. It is true that ordinary citizens in fact cannot tell the difference between such polished lies and disinformation in the course of their normal lives. Such venues use all the power inherent in their venue to obscure, bend and make believable their presentations. Therefore, all statements by candidates or government employees are subject to fact check and such information will be publicly available on the Government election site in a searchable database.

If democratic citizens choose to ignore the information on the vetted government site and choose to believe what they hear as entertainment that is the fault of those citizens and they are placing their democracy in peril. In a free society laws cannot be designed and are not intended to protect us from ourselves.

In return for this level of commitment and transparency we the people must guarantee that government workers at all levels from political positions to the lowest government functionaries, law enforcement, right down to include the janitor at the pentagon is paid well and pensioned well; not just enough. They must feel well reworded and safe in their financial future. We are asking a lot of these people. We understand that compensating them well for their service is required if we are to hold them to a standard higher that that to which we hold ourselves.

#3 Judicial Reform

By Judicial reform I mean a strong look at the entire system of justice as we see it acted out in our country today. There is much that is strong and good in our system but there are some problems we are seeing today that have never been seen before. They are also related to the effect of money in our judicial system just as money has had its effect on our politics in general. Money and justice simply don’t mix. The only reason for money in the justice system is to buy uneven justice and we have, and are, witnessing this effect.

At its base, our justice system needs to deliver the enforcement of the rule of law to everyone equally. This includes ordinary citizens as well as those currently in elected or appointed positions. Clearly, if we intend to live in a just and fair land the laws we live by must apply to everyone equally. No person regardless of age, race, position or wealth should be handled differently nor should their position or wealth have any effect on how the law is applied to them in any way. Our current culture of money has obviously not upheld this principle.

In order for this to be accomplished our system of delivering justice must be consistent and equally available to all. In our current state those with a lot of money or a lot of influence are able to appeal their cases through many levels of the court. We have seen how this can be used to create delays in the resolution of the case and where despite overwhelming evidence those appeals can be used to pervert the intention and the act of justice and, in some cases, can suspend the resolution of justice entirely. To correct this defect while maintaining the protection that a single court might make a mistake a possible solution is to allow one appeal only. This would have to apply to all cases regardless of the type of case location or its public profile.

In order to remove the effects of money from our justice system the individuals who adjudicate this system including, Court justices, police officers at all levels, any and all government employees must be held to the highest standards of ethics and must not be allowed to become involved in the financial meanderings of anyone. No gifts, no stocks, no investments, no transfer of wealth before, during or after their service can be allowed. If a justice worker is unwilling to abide by these conditions then they must not be allowed to retain their position.

This condition of acting entirely outside of the influence of money must be proven constantly. Thus, like political candidates, these individuals must give up all rights to financial privacy. All of their income, associations, taxation, resources and possessions must be revealed to the public before, during and after their tenure. Clearly, no one who is motivated by money would agree to this. This is as we intend.

In return for this commitment and transparency we the people must guarantee that government workers at all levels from political positions to the lowest government functionaries, law enforcement, right down to include the janitor at the pentagon is paid well and pensioned well; not just enough. They must feel well reworded and safe in their financial future. We are asking a lot of these people. We understand that compensating them well for their service is required if we are to hold them to a standard higher that that to which we hold ourselves.

#4 Uniform Enforcement of Judicial Decisions

We have now witnessed what it means for specific individuals and even government in general to somehow rise to the position where it or they are exempt from the consequences of ignoring judicial decisions. This experience has shown that what applies to ordinary citizens where ignoring judicial decisions results in fines and incarceration this does not apply to arms of government or certain elected officials. This uneven application of the law undermines the concept of law and creates chaos within our systems.

Therefore, the decision of a justice within the US court needs to be binding on all and any defendant under any and all circumstances. There can be no exceptions to this rule. Whether it is a decision to repatriate a prisoner who has been wrongly deported or a summons to testify. The justice system has to have the teeth to make its will the law. That is what we ask of it.

Persons or institutions who defy court orders fall under the same process as others who have broken the law. We as a society define this as a crime akin to all other crimes, embezzlement, assault, theft and murder and it should be treated as such by all law enforcement agencies in all cases up to and including the oval office and the pentagon and all agencies. No situation or branch of service has immunity or protection from this action regardless of the rational for the perpetration of the crime whether it be touted as national security or pure politics or any other situation.

A state of emergency as defined by our government is now used to circumvent the normal workings of our government yet there is no proof mechanism for this emergency other than that the executive or some other official states it is present. In these states of emergency the executive is given additional powers without the oversight of congress or the judicial branch. While this is an important tool for dealing with rapidly developing situations it should not be a tool for circumventing the authority of congress or for circumventing the process of law.

Therefore, a state of emergency can only exist by decree of the executive or any other official for 7 actual calendar days with no exceptions. In that time the case must be presented to both houses of congress and a vote taken. No similar or same state of emergency can be re-declared if the vote taken dissolves the state of emergency. And congress must evaluate the origional claim. If it finds that the circumstances did not actually warrant a state of emergency to be imposed by the executive because either there was no emergency or because the situation was not developing so rapidly that congress could not have been consulted before such a state was entered.

Congress itself retains the power to declare war and states of emergency. Both houses by a simple majority must agree for the state of emergency to be recognized.

A state of emergency should be a rare occurrence and one entered only with the gravest of concern and with upmost ethical consideration.

#5 Term limits for all elected and appointed positions.

And, a clear mechanism whereby a individual can be removed from his or her position for an ethical breach.

All elected and appointed positions including those in the judiciary at all levels will have term limits imposed.

It was thought that in a case where appointment was for life that the official would have some immunity from the pressures of politics and money. Unfortunately, our recent experience shows us that this is no longer true. Rather, the opposite has become true. These individuals appointed for life often abuse that protection in order to enrich themselves and in order to couch their decisions in favor of specific business entities or individuals rather than the clear and straightforward interpretation of the law.

The length of term for any given position could spark a contentions debate however, the concept of term limits is solid. We do know now from clear experience that the absence of term limits combined with the absence of ethical requirements has led us into unsafe and unstable territory.

It may be prudent to have some terms of service longer than others. Or it may be decided that 6 years for all public office and positions is best. This will work out over time but we have to start at some point.

Congressmen 6 years.

President 4 years per term, two terms.

Judiciary at all levels 12 years.

Other appointed positions 6 years.

At the same time it must not be easy to remove an official who makes a just but unpopular decision. We know that this must happen and is appropriate to reign in individuals who have used their power either through position or through wealth to perpetrate unjust or unethical actions. These individuals may then use their power and wealth to then attack the justice who ruled against them. It is no trivial matter to remove a justice just as it is also needed to be able to remove a justice who is no longer acting in accordance with the public trust.

Impeachment and removal of any Judge requires a simple majority of both houses. Just as congress approves of judicial appointments they are responsible for correcting mistakes. Either house may start the process. The second house must react as its first and only business until the matter is resolved. A Vote cannot be postponed or avoided by any tradition or rule created within either house.

#6 Reform of Congress

Over time and due to the influence of money the workings of our congress have become unmanageable. What had been conceived of as a best possible solution has devolved to become unattached to the will of the public and has become essentially a tool of wealth and power. The obstruction of process has become too easy and has created a body that no longer represents us, no longer deals in honesty and truth, and has lost its ethical way.

The removal of money from politics Goals #1 and #2 will do much to correct this situation but there is now, in both branches of congress, a body of rules and process that has grown to enable the influence of money and it will not reorganize or redefine cleanly without our presence and pressure. These had been conceived as bodies who’s members would uphold traditions of honor and honesty. Although, these ideals probably never existed as we might have hoped, they have clearly been abandoned now.

As I am not a congressional scholar nor an expert on the workings of congress I can only speak to what are to me the most egregious manipulations of whch I am personally aware.

The majority leaders in both houses will not have the power to schedule or deny the vote on any measure that any member of the house proposes. This rule is absolute and includes the actions that may be taken in committees who’s job it is to debate and define what comes to the floor of the house. It is understood that some issues are more complex than others and that action at the committee level may take time. However, stalling an issue in committee as a mechanism to prevent a floor vote is manipulative and counter productive to the representation of the people in an honest and transparent manor.

Therefore, all items in committee must come to the floor within three months of that item being proposed regardless of who or how the measure was proposed. If a committee feels that it hasn’t completed its work during that time a single stay for an additional three months can be requested of the full body as a floor vote. If a member of the committee feels that the delay is manipulative, unethical or for any other reason he or she will have one hour to speak to the full body to which he or she belongs and in which the action is being taken. If a stay is denied by the full body then the floor vote on the issue must take place immediately.

The filibuster is abolished. No actions taken to disrupt or delay the work of the congress are acceptable.

e#7 Realign foreign policy to support world wide democracy and cooperation on all issues of environment and trade

As a principal we agree that we are living in a time of global reality. There is no practical, workable, return to isolated nationalism. While cultures, ethnicity, and differences of location still have great value to human kind the idea that we live separately is recognized as no longer functional. While this is true we recognize that we do not control all the governments of the world and we do not aspire to. The notion of manifest destiny for the US or any other nation is no longer approved and is hereby disavowed.

A strong diplomatic corps is important for the US to interact with and support global efforts at fairness, honesty, and opportunity for all the earth’s inhabitants. We believe and support democracy through out the world but also hereby disavow all clandestine efforts to manipulate or suspend the process of any other country. This includes all agencies who’s efforts may be conducted for these purposes.

However, we recognize that our world does contain aggressors and manipulators. We must protect our process from these outside influences regardless of where they originated or what their purpose is, wether they are direct attacks, dis-informative, or pure cyber attacks. The agencies of our government who clandestinely gather information and advise our leaders must continue this effort as a pure process. That is, while information gathering can be clandestine, action, retaliation, manipulation of a foreign power is not to be done in a clandestine manner.

It is likely that those involved in such activities will be opposed to this idea but it is our judgment as a people that such clandestine action to manipulate foreign powers does more harm than good. If an action of another country is threatening to us action against that country should be done openly and in the cooperation with all other countries affected.

This need not slow down our responses as the network of communication now possible is very fast. The secrecy required to carry out attacks can only be justified if the action is agreed upon by our various military, diplomatic and political figures with inclusion of any foreign powers who are affected. Action taken against a regime who is perpetrating a violation of international law should be definitive. Such actions must include the action itself, the expected reaction and the plan to resolve the international crime. Perpetrators of international crime must understand that we unite with the world to live in a safe, honest, ethical environment where the rule of law applies equally and everywhere.

Coda

There are many issues a functioning government should address including but not limited to:

Climate change

Gender rights.

Infrastructure

Application of AI

Rights to medical care

Social safety nets

Monopoly of essential services

Many more

These can only be effectively addressed if our government is acting in an ethical, honest and forthright manor uncontrolled and uninfluenced by the raw power of the ultra wealthy or the particularly needy.

To be Pro-Democracy is to work toward a government that can solve these problems for the benefit of everyone but it does not imply that only one solution is desired, that any special interest is correct or that any particular group will get its way.