Yeah! I don't like veggetarins there a sorry lot. Just kidding but hey way to many funky groups out there.

One of the things that I like most about GOOOH is this idea that a Representative can be removed if they violate the agreement under which they campaigned. Far too many politicians tell blatant lies while campaigning, intentionally misrepresenting their positions on an issue to seem like something they are not. Then when they follow their true political nature, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. However, it occurs to me that many of the questions and positions which candidates are asked to agree to are rather vague. Several on this thread have suggested that it would be reasonable to remove a Representative if it was discovered that they belonged to a group whose interests were counter to America's. I suspect that this is too vague to enforce in a timely manner.

As I understand it, Barack Obama was (at one time) a member of the New Party. And he has numerous ties to other socialist and communist individuals and organizations. To me, it seems that this would be enough to place Obama in breech of his agreement, if he were a GOOOH member and GOOOH covered the presidential office. But I suspect that there are a lot of people (members of those groups for instance)  who would argue that these groups are not working against America's best interests, but rather for America's best interests. While I definitely do not agree, I think you might have a hard time proving the case against Obama in a court of law.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Being less ambiguous would help, but going too far in that direction is what has lead to our current situation where legislative bills can run to several thousands of pages. And we still have no idea what's in it because no one has read it.

Another similar difficulty is that virtually every single bill has numerous different issues stuffed into it. I believe this is done on purpose, to allow politicians to obfuscate and deny their true positions. They can claim that they didn't vote for (or against) issue A. They voted against (or for) issue B. This fact will also make it very difficult to 'prove' that a representative voted against their stated platform. And I think it probably needs to be rethought at some point.

CD - Good points. I hope you, and everyone, have completed the member survey. We have been canvassing members for the last couple of months to see if the system should exclude anyone, as I originally proposed, or if we should allow each group of ten to make that decision. The vote is close on lawyers and "the wealthy", but only a small percent favor allowing ACLU members to participate.

The bigger point here is that the system as I originally proposed is simply the starting point. The screening criteria, the questions, and even the process are all evolving according to the desires of the GOOOH members.

As for me, personally, I welcome the scrutiny. A big reason I've dedicated the last year of my life to get this started is because I am so dissatisfied with the people ruining our country. Hopefully, time will prove America agrees with me.

Trying to get candidates to sign a paper stating that they are not part of groups which are counterproductive to the public good might be difficult.  It is easy to state that NAMBLA and the KKK are among these groups, but there is a legitamate argument that the ACLU is not.  Personally, I can't stand the ACLU anymore, and it is shocking to me when I see them siding with someone that I agree with.  Usually when that happens, I have to re-evaluate why I support one side over another to make sure that I am on the right side.  Since the "public good" is subjective in many cases, the best we can do is come up with a list of groups that most people would agree are counter productive.

You are right that we do not know a lot about Tim Cox aside from what he has told us, either posted on this site or in his book.  For all we really know, he could be a scam artist, crook, or part of one of the political groups, trying to find decenters in the hopes of getting them back into one of the main parties.  Before the admins come and kick me out of here, let me just say that I have no evidence to support or even suggest that this is true.  We do have to trust him, and other founders of the GOOOH party.

If you haven't already, go pick up the GOOOH book by Tim Cox.  I finished it last night, and it was a pretty good book, overall.  There were a few parts I didn't care much for.  It is obvious that he put a lot of thought into the process.  I've also heard good things about The Revolution, by Ron Paul.  I'm reading that one right now.

Chris,

Maybe I should have clarified my statement about meetings but I only meant meetings of a governmental nature not personal.  I totally agree that our personal freedoms are being infringed apon and I would never ask a public servant (or any one else for that matter) to make public that kind of information (being it only has an effect on that individual and not the population as a whole, which makes it private).  Then the thing about these secret organizations having access to public officals, who cares.  As long as they are not the ones making the laws I could care less.  It's kinda like a bacteria and our immune system.  We are always gonna have those things floating around but if the body can recognize it, it can fight it off (most of the time).  Common sense would tell you if an elected offical was being influenced by secret organizations by the policy he was trying to implement.  It would be counter to the good of the population.  Check out the Lisbon treaty that the Irish people just rejected.  They couldn't even read the document.  So why in the hell would they vote for something like that?  As far as the elected officals go, make them sign something that states if they are elected to serve they can not be affiliated with any organization (secret or not) that is conterproductive to the public good.  And if they do so, then that automatically removes them from office (after review by a non-biased public pannel, real self governing type stuff).  Something that requires people to think and not just act (this dumming down of America is why people would have a harder and harder time doing things like this, do I detect something else going on?).  That is why the meetings that have to be public, so these things are easier to identify.  As far as fear goes, it's not fear that motivates me Chris but my curiosity to know what is going on.  I never say someting is true or false but I consider ALL possibilities first, no matter how far fetched they may sound.  Not saying I believe all of them but I consider them and rank them according to their possibility and priority depending on what evidence is brought forth (actuarial type stuff, it's pretty good method).  Then there is the Goooh system.  Do I think it's a good idea, hell yea.  Can I pass an opinion on it, yea, but do I know enough about it yet to give an educated opinion on it , nope.  Do I know enough about the guy who set it up, nope.  I think I need to do more research about it to do that.  But I'm not the type of person to just trust anything until I do those things.  That is why i'm here having this discussion with you, so I can not only present my point of view but to learn more.       

There are 2 problems that I see with trying to monitor meetings.  The first one is that allowing exceptions as to which meetings can and cannot be monitored will allow organizations a backdoor to the Congressmen.  Who would review the national security meetings and who would make sure that those people would not be part of a secret group?

The second problem is the right to privicy.  Not all meetings that a congressman might have will relate to his work.  He might meet with doctors or lawyers for personal problems, either for himself or his children.  Should his entire life, and the lives of those around him be subject to this requirement because we are afraid of a secret group taking control of the country?

We should not give up our rights just because we are afaid.  The best things that I think we can do to protect ourselves from groups which want to take away our rights, and control our country, is to support groups like GOOOH, and to do whatever we can to forward these groups.  There are a lot of lazy people out there, but there are also a lot of people who have given up.  My mother happens to be one of those who gave up on politics.  She said that she gave up when Bill Clinton was re-elected.  Before I found out about GOOOH, I didn't see the point either.  The goal of this group, and other like it, is to give power back to the people.

Fear is a powerful motivator.  Our rights are slowing going away because we are afraid of terrorist.  I am concerned about groups which want to take down this country, be it because of hate, greed, or a desire for power.  But I am more afraid that people will hand over our rights because of fear.  I am afraid that one day the government will say "we need to be able to search anyone's home, office, or personal property without warrants to check for terrorist" and that people will be ok with this.  But, I digress.

I think it is ok to exclude groups from organizations, but it has to be within reason.  We cannot try to monitor everyone to protect ourselves from groups which may or may not exist.  We need to trust in the system that GOOOH is putting forth, and to put limited protective measures in place to prevent people who desire power from keeping it.  Measure such as term limits and donation limits.  But monitoring the lives of people should not be done.

Chris,

I hear ya about the witch hunt thing but there might be a way to minimize the chance of secret orgs. getting into office.  No meetings (except those relating to national security, and even those would be subject to review after  the objective was complete) can be held in private, everything is transparent.   That way what is being said is  known by the public.  If this measure was taken, I feel it would lessen the chance of any funny business.  On the other hand, these secret organizations are not as secret as you think.   There symbolism is everywhere you look.  For one thing it's all over the money we use, as a matter of fact the people who print the money are a big part of this group.  The problem is that some people (not all, but some) are lazy (not stupid) when it comes to doing any reading or research on the nature of these things and because the system has been around for so long, we take it as being normal.   We don't look deeper into the situation.  We don't look past the system, we just use the system they create.  I'm gonna give you a real good example.  I work as an accountant.  I was doing taxes with this lady who had been an accountant for 18 years.  I ask her if she knew about the Fed Reserve being a private organization.  Her exact words were "I had no idea..... wow that is really scary".   I value her opinion because she is a veteran in her field and that response said a lot.  The function of creating money should be in the hands of our government (it states it in the constition Article 1 section 8).  But good ole Woodrow Wilson signed these people into power to control our money.  If you haven't looked at the quote from our late president Andrew Jackson you need to.  One of his greatest accomplisments as our president was that "he broke the bank".  Research that quote.  Also, look at what Woodrow Wilson said after he signed the Fed into being.  Something along the lines as being the biggest mistake he ever made.  Now, why am I rambling on about all this?  I am not just typing this out to show how much I know about all this stuff but it's because I think the only way to get anywhere is to expose the real problems so we can have real results.  Now, I probably don't know a fraction of what there is to know about all the problems we have (but I'm always more than happy to listen to other opinions) but what I do know I'm gonna say it LOUD so at least I can feel I've done my part as an American.  Nothing is gonna change unless the complete problem is diagnosed properly.  Also, if you have time check out "Money as debt" if you haven't.  It's only about 45 min long.  Here is a quote from that video from Anselm Rothschild "Give me the power to issue a nations money, and I do not care who makes the law."  I am not preaching to anyone and many of you may have heard this stuff already but I just want to make those who don't know aware of what could be real big problems.

Icklay: There are certain groups that exists which are counter-productive.  I do not think that these groups would help select new representatives without expecting their agenda to be approved of.  The KKK is a racist group.  NAMBLA's name says it all.  I do not know everything that the ACLU has done, but from what I have heard and read about, the ACLU seems to support free speech and privicy, and pushes that protection to an extreme position.  For example, they supported Westboro Baptist Church, and supports the rights of prisoners.  I could go on and on about other things they have done, but you should do you own research.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/challengetohazletonimmigra.htm

Also check out http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/10953leg20030730.html.

Jbwillia: There are tons of theories as to why the country is following its current trend.  The UNA seems to be a popular one.  But no matter what the cause is, we can turn this country around if we work at it.  I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but the reason an orgainization is called secret is because people don't know about it.  It will be impossible to prevent people from secret groups from getting into office.  The best thing we can do it is put safeguards in place to prevent those groups from mantaining power for a long time.  Term limits, donation limits, and getting people to pay attention and vote are the main things we can do.  If we tried to seek out those orgainization, and people who are in them, it would turn into a witch hunt.

Hey guys, I'm new here.  I just heard about this web site from the walton and johnson radio show this morning.  I think it's a great way for citizens that really care about America to step up and DO SOMETHING about this messed up position we are in.  This thread is about special interest groups, but I think one of the restrictions in the screening process is that no person running for govenrment should be allowed to be a part of any secret organizations.  I have been reading a lot about history and I feel this is one of the main reasons we are in a world that could possibly be run by a NWO.  I don't want to sound like a nut job so don't take my word for it, check out the following stuff, do some of your own research, and then see how you look at things.  I think you guys should check out the you tube video "Money as Debt", also chek out this link http://www.michaeltsarion.com/ and go to the mtsar fourm.  Read around in that place for a while and see what people are saying.  Then do some research on it.  I am pretty positive you might gain more insight on why this great country is being run into the ground.  I am not one to try and convince people by what I say, in fact I emplore you to research everything as throughly as you think you need, to arrive at an answer you think is correct.   Also, chek out the video "Zeitgeist" on you tube.   One last thing, look up Bohemian grove on the internet.  Do some research on that.  So getting back to my point is that ANYONE THAT BELONGS TO A SECRET ORGANIZATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED INTO PUBLIC OFFICE, OR ANY POSITION OF POWER TO RULE OVER ANYONE OR ANYTHING, PERIOD!

When I read the question about banning any groups from joining GOOOH I started to wonder why even ask that question.   Any group would come with their predefind Ideals just as each of us do.  The differance I can see is that as a Group they would tend to try to Drive and override what the many of us are setting into place.  Some might do this without knowing it, other might join just for that reason.   Be it the listed groups or any other group.