Jore responds to Smith's allegations

Editor,

A Cicero quote I recall hearing years ago went something like this: "My opponents have placed me at a great disadvantage; they have stooped to levels that I cannot go."

I am more than willing to discuss my positions on issues pertinent to the office of State Representative. However, I am not entirely sure how to respond to emotional sensationalism and exaggerations that insinuate that I am "like the American Taliban" who thinks slavery was a good idea; or indecipherable rants that I am running for office on a Party that is not a Party.

Obviously, some individuals who oppose my campaign are pulling out all stops in an attempt to discredit myself and the Constitution Party. I will not respond to absurd contentions and tactics of "guilt by association" that totally misrepresent me and others. I will point to examples in Thompson Smith's letter that will expose his apparent misunderstanding or blatant misrepresentation of my positions.

The CP platform does not seek to "abolish public education" as Mr. Smith asserts. The platform calls for abolishing the federal Department of Education. Ronald Reagan promised to do the same thing. Federal involvement in education is unconstitutional. The public schools in Montana are established by Article X of the Montana Constitution and accountability is placed with parents and taxpayers of the districts. Removing federal involvement would restore fidelity to the federal and state Constitutions.

As a legislator I was required to take an oath to uphold the Montana Constitution, including Article X and I meant it. Simply and honestly stating the language of the platform does not express the type of extremism that Mr. Smith seeks to convey.

Mr. Smith states the CP would "abolish citizen election of U.S. Senators." Sounds extreme … but here are the facts: The United States has existed without direct election of U.S. Senators longer than with it. Before enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the Constitution established that U.S. Senators be appointed by the state legislature and accountable to it so as to preserve the interests and sovereignty of the States. This is why each state, regardless of population, has two Senators with fairly lengthy terms (6 years).

The House was to represent the interests of the people according to population but with shorter terms (two years) for quick removal, if necessary. In essence, the 17th Amendment has made the U.S. Senate a 100-member House with six-year terms that caters to special interests rather than upholding the interests of the States. This is not good if you believe the original efforts of the Constitution to preserve strong state authority and limit federal authority was wise.

The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a state government-run program providing health insurance for children from low income families. It has existed for less than 10 years. The funding is 80 percent federal dollars, 20 percent state dollars. Since there is no provision in the federal Constitution allowing for this type of appropriation, my contention is these federal funds are unconstitutionally appropriated.

State legislators scarcely can resist the pressure to vote for these programs because they do not want to appear "cold-hearted" or foolish by rejecting these "free" federal funds. In reality, this well intentioned program is forcing families who have no health insurance themselves to subsidize health insurance for other families. It is one of many programs leading us toward totally socialized healthcare.

Mr. Smith draws much of his information from the Montana Human Rights Network. While continually advocating for "tolerance and diversity," the MHRN has no tolerance for anyone who does not embrace such things as homosexuality being an acceptable lifestyle (that should be taught to school children no less), abortion on demand, socialistic government, and the total secularization of American society.

If you are interested in getting straightforward information regarding my positions or the CP platform, I suggest you call me (644-2542), email me (rickjore@hotmail.com), or see my website (rickjore.com).

Friends, pragmatism is the philosophy that is summed up by the phrase "the end justifies the means."

Pragmatism rejects morals for convenience or expediency. To say we need "pragmatic lawmakers who, while guided by moral principles, are in favor of what works" is double-minded and oxymoronic.

If "we all love the Constitution" as Mr. Smith contends, we should follow it.

Rick Jore

Ronan