Kennedy

You may want to rethink those last two pics, before some unknown libertairan with conservative leanings and a seemingly liberal name gets this lovely thread shoved into ... The Corner! ...if they were at the flying idjits event, said unnamed guy will shut his yap. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What total reorganization? Would you not say our government has been moving more and more towards socialism since the New Deal? Think about everything that the government has it's fingers in nowadays. What is really left in the realm of "civil society?" half way down the page on this link is a good explanation of what I mean: http://www.friesian.com/corrupt.htm witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Was there something misleading about the video? Or are you really going to claim Moore isn't misleading? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

One word, I think. So the "it takes a village" 'ideal' is not socialist? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The man makes a good point, John. After all, how often to we tell people that the fact of the matter is gun control doesn't affect the criminals? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oregon state courts have no bearing on California state law, or the California Supreme Court. I must have missed the post you're talking about. How can a marriage be valid if the person performing it has no authority to marry people? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

In general: Socialism by it's definition does not believe in civil rights. Civil rights exist in a sphere called civil society. This is the realm of voluntary interaction, free from government control. (control, not action) A better explenation than I might give can be found half way down on this page: http://www.friesian.com/corrupt.htm. Socialists, of which Clinton is one, don't believe in civil society, but rather in governmental control over all aspects of life. Remember, before perversion by big government spinmeisters, rights were a negative, denying things to the government. Somehow, they have become "things that people are allowed to do," which immediately draws governments into all facets of life. He sought to expand the legal basis for affirmative action to include the need for a diverse work force, not just to remedy past discrimination. He signed a welfare bill that caused poverty (or if you prefer, failed to prevent great expansion of the number of people classified as poor). He pushed for massive strikes against habeas corpus. He tried to "interpret" the second amendment out of existance. He pushed affirmative action over equal protection. Due process became a thing of the past under his administration. Private property was up for grabs to the first law enforcement agency with the gall to take it. I won't even go into his Imperial, America-Second policies. Google for articles as a starting point. Here are two to get you started. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001010.html http://www.cato-institute.com/dailys/8-22-97.html witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Poor memory, or were you not paying attention? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

How did I know someone with a PhD wouldn't get it? Those aren't even jokes, political, American, or otherwise. You've never screwed up a common saying in front of an audience? The man isn't the best public speaker. Whoop-di-do. Oooh, a whole wrong form of a verb. That's cause for side splitting laughter, no doubt. And why should the government stop thinking aobut ways to harm the country? Would you rather they not consider what the bad guys might do to hurt us? I've heard dyslexia makes it hard to explain things to other people, and it seems that's all it is. Doesn't come off as a practiced speaker? No. Coems off as an idiot? Only to the ignorant or those predisposed to hate him (aka Democrats). ps - I'm still waiting for a punch line. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You thought it WAS vividvideo? That's quality!! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

anyone else read this subject too quickly and see Vivid Video the first time? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Most bureaucrats are not politicians. The title is very clear. He thinks the article illustrates why elected officials shouldn't be the DCI. And are you still suffering the dillusion that the democrats are any different than the republicans? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

For things like newspapers and other services, more and more they want a "free" sign in. Well, this is for Wendy and all the other sign in impaired out there. http://www.bugmenot.com/ or you can use my little secret. A site I frequent has logged into every news site in existance, as far as I know. Sign in as either "Newslinks" or "Newslinks@keepandbeararms.com" depending on what the site wants. The password is "Newslinks" witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

AS LONG AS I GET ON IT THIS TIME !! I've even got a new mobile and all. (ok, so it's a new plan on an old phone, but it WORKS!) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh, I get your intention. I just don't see any humor in it. The Patriot Act is about as "funny" to me as gun control. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

This is the type of article I honestly -do- like to see in major papers. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh boy, this is the kind of editorial I like to see. Is it factual? logical? coherrent? Not in the slightest. It will, however, be fun to pull it out in November and ask if things have suddenly changed since mid September. edit to add: Even the gun banner's can't all agree what will happen "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass." Tom Diaz, Senior Policy Analyst, for the gun ban group Violence Policy Center (VPC) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What was that quote I read about all this "Intelligence" reform bru-ha-ha? Ah, yes. "Changing the DCI is like prescribing Rogaine for a chemotherapy patient. Sure, they might be losing their hair, but it hardly addresses the cause of the problem." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What was inscribed on the first rifle I ever fired...? Oh, yeah. "Do good, and fear no man." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

A must read for everyone voting Democrat because they're afraid of this year's Republicans. http://www.reason.com/hod/jb072604.shtml (long read) For John Kerry, the specter of Attorney General John Ashcroft trashing Americans' civil liberties has been a useful campaign prop. In campaign stops, Kerry has promised to "end the era of John Ashcroft and renew our faith in the Constitution." In a Kerry administration, he promised the liberal group MoveOn in June 2003, "there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights." In his 2004 campaign book, A Call to Service, Kerry accuses Ashcroft and the Bush administration of "relying far too much on extraordinary police powers." In contrast, Kerry positions himself as a civil libertarian—or at least as a proponent of a reasonable balance between liberty and security. "If we are to stand as the world's role model for freedom, we need to remain vigilant about our own civil liberties," Kerry writes in A Call to Service. He calls for "rededicating ourselves to protecting civil liberties." Kerry, like every other senator in the chamber except Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11. Now he is now co-sponsoring the SAFE Act, a bipartisan measure that restricts some of the powers that the PATRIOT Act granted the government. Furthermore, he is critical of the package of proposals from Ashcroft's Department of Justice (DOJ) that has been dubbed Patriot II. Citing his experience as a prosecutor—he was an assistant district attorney in suburban Boston in the '70s—Kerry writes, "I know there's a big difference between giving the government the resources and commonsense leeway it needs to track a tough and devious foe and giving in to the temptation of taking shortcuts that will sacrifice liberties cheaply without significantly enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement. Patriot II threatens to cross that line—and to a serious degree." This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides. But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages. In the meantime, the Clinton administration classified virtually all encryption devices as "munitions" that were banned from export, putting American business at a disadvantage. In 1997 Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain pushed the Secure Public Networks Act through his committee. This bill would have codified the administration's export ban and started a key escrow system. One of his original co-sponsors was his fellow Vietnam vet and good friend from across the aisle, John Kerry. Proponents such as McCain and Kerry claimed that law enforcement could not get the key from any third-party agency without a court order. Critics responded that there were loopholes in the law, that it opened the door to abuses, and that it punished a technology rather than wrongdoers who used that technology. Some opponents argued that the idea was equivalent to giving the government an electronic key to everyone's home. "To date, we have heard a great deal about the needs of law enforcement and not enough about the privacy needs of the rest of us," said then-Sen. Ashcroft in a 1997 speech to the Computer and Communications Industry Association. "While we need to revise our laws to reflect the digital age, one thing that does not need revision is the Fourth Amendment... Now, more than ever, we must protect citizens' privacy from the excesses of an arrogant, overly powerful government." But John Kerry would have none of this. He had just written The New War, a book about the threat of transnational criminal organizations, and he was singing a different tune on civil liberties. Responding directly to a column in Wired on encryption that said "trusting the government with your privacy is like having a Peeping Tom install your window blinds," Kerry invoked the Americans killed in 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. "[O]ne would be hard-pressed," he wrote, "to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one." Change a few words, and the passage could easily fit into Attorney General Ashcroft's infamous speech to the Senate Judiciary Committee in late 2001—the one where he declared, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberties, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists—for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." If Ashcroft was encryption advocates' go-to guy on the GOP side in the encryption debate, Kerry played that role for law enforcement among the Democrats. "John Kerry was always a pretty strong proponent of law enforcement and the military, and the NSA was not terribly crypto-friendly, and the FBI was extremely uncrypto-friendly," says Will Rodger, who covered the encryption debate for USA Today and is now public policy director at the Computer and Communications Industry Association. "John Kerry's support for limiting encryption wasn't a real shock to most people who had followed his voting record." Eventually, the strength of the business and civil liberties opposition—plus the sheer impossibility of keeping up with encryption technology—led the Clinton administration and Kerry to accept relaxed encryption controls. Today it seems laughable that software would ever have been labeled as "munitions"; even Ashcroft's DOJ did not try to include a key escrow system in the PATRIOT Act. "Get Their Ass and Get Their Assets" The Bush administration is not likely to point out Kerry's position in favor of encryption control, because it is trying to paint him as soft on crime and terrorism. Kerry does hold many traditionally liberal views on crime, including a consistent opposition to the death penalty. But encryption was just one of many issues in Kerry's Senate career where he and civil libertarians were on opposite sides. And while Kerry is in some respects singing a different tune today on civil liberties, he has never walked away from his statements in The New War. In fact, he displays the book in an ad that began running in late June as evidence that he authored an antiterrorism strategy way back in the late '90s. Although the encryption fight appears to be over, similar battles are being fought today. For instance, as with encryption, the FBI now wants preemptive design mandates so it can have an automatic mechanism to tap into Voice over Internet Protocol, the fledgling technology that allows people to make phone calls online. Once again, law enforcement wants tech firms to build a "back door" for the police. Wayne Crews, director of technology studies at the pro-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that Kerry has been silent on the FBI's efforts. "The only thing I've heard from Kerry on technology regulation is continued investment from the federal government," Crews says. This isn't the only issue that could be worrisome for civil libertarians, given Kerry's record in the '90s. In general, whenever the ACLU was aligned with business interests, Kerry took the side of law enforcement against what he called "big money." An example is the fight over asset forfeiture. In the 1980s war on drugs, the laws were stretched so that property that had been used for criminal purposes could be seized by law enforcement even if the owner of that property was innocent. If a drug dealer rode in your car or your airplane, for example, it was subject to seizure, and you would have to sue to get it back by proving you had no knowledge that a dealer had used it for illicit purposes. This was the case even if you had never been charged with any crime. The resale of impounded property became a source of revenue—and corruption—for local police departments. Even in cases where there were actual criminal convictions, governments would often seize assets that were not related to the crime or to compensating victims. In the mid-1990s, a bipartisan movement arose to reform the forfeiture laws, with conservative Republican Reps. Henry Hyde of Illinois and Bob Barr of Georgia joining with such liberal Democrats as Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. They wanted to increase the burden of proof on the government when it seized property. As with encryption, there was stiff opposition to reform from Janet Reno's Justice Department. What was Kerry's position? He thought U.S. asset forfeiture laws were working so well that he wanted to export them. "We absolutely must push for asset forfeiture laws all over the planet," Kerry wrote in The New War. "In the words of one plainspoken lawman, 'Get their ass and get their assets.'" There was, tellingly, no discussion at all of civil liberties issues. Kerry added that we can't reasonably expect another country "to assist us in our struggle with crime if it does not see direct benefit for itself, especially if it is among the countries with highly limited funds for law enforcement." It didn't seem to occur to Kerry that, without safeguards, countries "with highly limited funds" might go after the assets of innocent people or third parties with only a tangential relationship to the criminal. Indeed, the only "dark and dangerous underside" of international forfeiture he identified was the possibility that criminals would give up assets in exchange for avoiding jail sentences. "We must ensure that asset forfeitures do not become a substitute for serving time," he wrote. (In 2000, after being watered down by the Reno Justice Department, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act passed the Senate by a voice vote and was signed into law by Clinton. Kerry did not object on the Senate floor; neither did Sen. Ashcroft.) Even a semi-sympathetic review in the liberal Washington Monthly called The New War "a kind of international edition of Reefer Madness," referring to the notoriously overwrought anti-drug movie of the 1930s. Kerry is a drug warrior, and after having discovered some genuine instances of bad guys' stashing their money at the $23 billion Bank of Credit and Commerce International, an international financial institution that was shut down in 1991 by various countries' bank regulators, he became a crusader against banks holding "dirty money." (BCCI had dealings with drug lords, Saddam Hussein, the PLO, and the KGB.) While it may be too much to ask a major-party presidential candidate to ponder drug prohibition's contribution to dirty money, Kerry's solution to money laundering was—and is—to deputize banks and force them to spy on all their customers. Many on the left and right worried about overreach from the federal "Know Your Customer" regulations of 1997-98, which would have required banks to monitor every customer's "normal and expected transactions." Those proposed rules were eventually withdrawn after the ACLU, the Libertarian Party, and other groups generated more than 100,000 comments in opposition. But from his writings and statements, John Kerry seemed worried that the regulations did not go far enough. "If the standards by which banks accept money were lived up to with the same diligence as that by which most banks lend money, the 'know your customer' maxim would have teeth," he wrote in The New War. "But too many bankers pretend they are doing all they can to know what money crosses their threshold and pretend they are not as key as they are to law-enforcement efforts." Kerry then expressed his belief that bank customers are entitled to essentially zero privacy. "The technology is already available to monitor all electronic money transfers," he wrote (emphasis added). "We need the will to make sure it is put in place." Has a politician who seven years ago proposed all electronic transfers be monitored changed his views on civil liberties? Officials from Kerry's Senate office and presidential campaign promised to have someone answer questions about his civil liberties positions, but no one ever had. A close look at his campaign's statements on the PATRIOT Act, however, reveals that there is less to his opposition than meets the eye. As noted above, Kerry is cosponsoring the SAFE Act, which would limit the circumstances under which "sneak- and-peek" warrants can be issued under the PATRIOT Act. (PATRIOT broadened the government's power to conduct such searches, in which the person whose property is examined is not notified.) It also put more brakes on PATRIOT provisions that give the FBI the power to search records on individuals held by third parties—such as libraries, bookstores, and Internet service providers—and the power to require the third parties to keep silent about the search. But Kerry signed onto the SAFE Act only after his right flank was protected; the bill's original co-sponsors included conservative Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as well as Feingold. More tellingly, Kerry's support is premised on what he calls Ashcroft's abuses of the PATRIOT Act, not on PATRIOT itself. "John Kerry stands by his vote for the Patriot Act," says a March 11 campaign statement. "You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcroft... The real problem with the Patriot Act is not the law, but the abuse of the law." In fact, the "real problem" is the law's provisions, which would be troubling in any administration. Responding to Kerry's statement, Gregory T. Nojeim, associate director of the ACLU's Washington National Office, says, "People from the left to the right agree that John Ashcroft is no civil liberties angel, but the problems of sneak-and-peek warrants and an overbroad notion of what constitutes terrorism are dangerous in the hands of any attorney general." Nojeim observes that the definition of terrorism is so broad that it could cover groups practicing civil disobedience, such as the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. Meanwhile, Kerry continues to support intrusive efforts to stamp out money laundering. His campaign statement points out that Kerry "authored most of the money laundering provisions" in PATRIOT. Those provisions were largely based on an old money laundering bill that Kerry had introduced and which was opposed by economic conservatives and the ACLU. Kerry and other Democrats insisted that the money laundering provisions be attached to the PATRIOT Act. An October 2001 Associated Press article quoted Kerry as accusing Republicans of trying to remove the provisions "by fiat." The article noted that Kerry "underlined the political influence of Texas bankers." The money laundering provisions, which became Title III of the PATRIOT Act, are some of the most privacy-threatening aspects of the bill. (See "Show Us Your Money," November 2003.) They go beyond the "Know Your Customer" rules of the late 1990s, bringing real estate brokers, travel agents, auto dealers, and various other businesses under the rubric of "financial institutions" that must monitor their customers and file "suspicious activity reports" on deviations from customers' normal patterns. It was the Title III money laundering provisions that the FBI used in the much-criticized Operation G-String, an investigation of a strip club owner in Las Vegas accused of bribing local officials. The case had nothing to do with terrorism. Tellingly, Kerry—whose provisions allowed it to happen—has not cited this operation as one of Ashcroft's abuses, even though other Democrats have. We have been told repeatedly that the world has changed since 9/11. Indeed, that is the explanation many have offered for Ashcroft's change of heart on civil liberties. But what about a candidate who, well before 9/11, consistently advocated measures that would have eroded those liberties? Would he be more or less constrained in the middle of a war on terror? To raise the issue is to take Kerry's own advice from his new book—that we "remain vigilant about our own civil liberties." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I've got bad news for you Jeffrey: too many cops have that apathy for responsibilty. That's one (relatively small) reason I'm becoming a cop - we need good ones. disclaimer: I said too many, not most. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Are you kidding? I love laughing at ametuer "Tim the tool man Taylor"s. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well, there were a few good "American" jokes in the Corner today. But I'm tired and leaving the compter, so good luck. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Now that would be cool, having an accuracy jumper or a swooper light the flame. No need to worry about tripping on your way up the stairs. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$24988 AFP: Mr. Badnarik, can you tell us briefly why you seek the position for the highest elected office in the United States? Badnarik: "You might call me 'the accidental candidate.' For several years, I've taught a course on the U.S. Constitution around the country. A couple of years ago, a number of friends and former students came to me and said 'Michael, we want you to run for president.' My first reaction was 'president of what?' And when they said 'president of the United States,' I thought they were nuts. "But the prospect also intrigued me, so I went out on the road to test the waters. I ended up traveling and speaking almost nonstop for 18 months. The reaction from Libertarians, ultimately expressed at the Libertarian Party's national convention, was 'Michael Badnarik can talk to voters, and they'll believe him and agree with him. He's our man.' So here I am." AFP: And what are your three main priorities as that candidate? Badnarik: "I only have one priority as a candidate - and as an individual - and that is the restoration of the Bill of Rights and of constitutional government in America. There are various ways of going about it, but that's the priority." AFP: There are many choices this presidential-election season. Why should America vote for Michael Badnarik for president? Badnarik: "I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government. The Democrats have never made any secret of the fact that they want to grow government - and the Republicans have stopped pretending that they want to reduce it. So the real answer is another question: 'What do you want in a president?' If you want a pro-freedom, limited government executive, then I'm the man to elect." AFP: A lot of folks here in the Shenandoah Valley might ask, why vote for the Libertarian candidate? Badnarik: "The Guardian - a British newspaper - ran a column by George Monbiot the other day in which he wrote that we 'can vote out the monkeys but not the organ grinder.' That's as apt a description of the 'major' parties as I've read. The Republicans and Democrats don't differ to any great degree on any important issue. If you vote for either party, you're going to get less freedom and more government. Voting Libertarian is the only way to express your desire for more freedom and less government at the ballot box." AFP: In accordance with federal election laws in the United States, a third-party presidential candidate must seek ballot access by petition. Can you tell us about the progress of the Libertarian petition drive concerning access to those state ballots? Badnarik: "At this moment, I'm on the ballot in 31 states; I expect to be on in 49 or 50, depending on how a ballot access lawsuit in Oklahoma comes out. In the other states, the petition drives and such are still being wrapped up." AFP: The recent findings from the 9/11 Commission Report did not satisfy the American public concerning the lack of accountability - and enabling the county to move forward with new standards with our nations' ability to protect the citizens. What are your personal observations about the 9/11 Commission Report? Badnarik: "The 9/11 Report reads sort of like a Rogaine prescription for a chemotherapy patient. Yes, the patient is losing his hair, but that's the least of his problems. The report talks a lot about enhancing the nation's ability to collect and analyze intelligence, but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies. Until we address that, we're stuck playing catch-up with an ever larger, ever more adaptive set of enemies. And that's a losing game." AFP: What U.S. government policies would you change with the findings of the 9/11 Commission? Badnarik: "I believe the 9/11 Commission was right in one significant respect: We do need to retool the American intelligence community. However, that's not so much a matter of appointing a 'czar' or laying down new rules for information sharing as it is a matter of getting the intelligence community back in the business of intelligence collection and out of the business of raising and toppling regimes, influencing the internal affairs of other countries and so forth. "More to the point, the answer lies beyond the horizon that the commission set for itself. We need to get U.S. troops out of the more than 130 countries in which they are now operating and look instead to the defense of the United States. How Al-Qaeda attacked us is less important than why Al-Qaeda attacked us. They've never been shy about saying why. They've been telling us since 1991. They've told us before and after every attack since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that their problem with us is U.S. troops gallivanting about on Muslim soil." AFP: In a classic dog-eat-dog political tale, our local Republican state elected officials have rejected President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative with 2004 state legislation that would lower the federal-to-state requirements. Several legislators have labeled the Bush federal education mandate as another "big government program" - along with being too intrusive and costly to maintain. That high price tag is due to the continuing underfunding by the federal government, which can be compared with state unfunded mandates to localities. Where do you stand, Mr. Badnarik, on President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiatives? Badnarik: "I've read the Constitution many times. No matter how I read it - forward, backward, upside down or with my Captain Liberty Secret Decoder Ring - I can't find anything in it that empowers the federal government to be involved in education. And since the federal government got involved in education, our children have slipped from first to 29th place in terms of literacy, numeracy and other measurements of educational excellence. "The No Child Left Behind Act is just another extension of the policies that have destroyed American education. As president, I propose to get the federal government out of education, and I hope that the states will substantially privatize it as well. That's the only way to get back to our position of preeminence in learning." AFP: The unspoken issues of the 2004 presidential elections are the antiquated and useless policies of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Most Americans believe both major political parties are pandering for future Hispanic votes while avoiding the politically sensitive issues of immigration. If homeland security and the threat of foreign terrorists are such a major concern, why can't we control immigration on the Mexican-U.S. border? Badnarik: "Let's be realistic: The U.S. has more than 95,000 miles of border and coastline, and the current immigration regime encourages people to slip through without the formalities. With millions of immigrants dodging our Border Patrol every year, it's time to say 'enough - this isn't working.' "My goal is to encourage legitimate immigration - people coming to the United States to live free and work hard - while defending the nation against enemies who come here to harm it and parasites who come here to live on government largesse. "I advocate open immigration for individuals who are willing to enter at a Customs and Immigration station and submit to a quick background check to ensure that they aren't criminals or terrorists. And except for extreme cases such as Cuban and Haitian boat refugees who don't have much control over where they land, I advocate treating people who cross the borders elsewhere as what they are: invaders. "As a Libertarian, I oppose redistributionist welfare programs. As president, I'd work to eliminate them. Right now, the U.S. is a magnet for people seeking a handout. I want us to demagnetize ourselves in that respect. "A more open immigration regime, coupled with the elimination of welfare incentives, would greatly reduce the resources needed to provide real border security. And the proper agency for that security is the armed forces - once we've brought them home from Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan ..." AFP: Recently, it has been reported by The Washington Times that 35 percent of those arrested for illegal entry into the United States were personally motivated by President Bush's promised legislation for the amnesty concerning undocumented foreigners. Shenandoah Valley residents would like to know if you support the presidential uncontested amnesty? Badnarik: "President Bush's proposal is just the sort of half-fish, half-fowl thing that hasn't worked. He isn't proposing a real amnesty. He's proposing that those aliens currently living in the U.S. be tracked down and subjected to the same standards as newly arriving immigrants. It's not a bad idea as such, but it's a serious misallocation of resources. "Let's stop worrying about some guy who walked from Guadalajara to Arkansas to work in a poultry plant, and start worrying about real criminals and real terrorists. Instead of doing mass roundups and implementing documentation programs, let's concentrate on tracking down those who are harming Americans or lying in wait to harm Americans." AFP: What is your opinion concerning faith-based initiatives at the White House? Badnarik: "Not only do I approve of churches undertaking to provide welfare services, I want to hand the job over to them entirely. The difference between President Bush's proposal and mine is that mine doesn't include a taxpayer handout. Charity should be private. The churches can ask people to provide. My job is to cut taxes so that they can afford to provide." AFP: Mr. Badnarik, the federal government has grown three times the size of the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton. Who's to blame? Badnarik: "Who's to blame? Who's in the White House? Who controls Congress? "Over the last four years, the Republican administration and the Republican Congress have grown government like LBJ on a crack binge. They got a one-party government for the first time in 40 years by claiming that they'd cut government back. Now they're fresh out of excuses. AFP: What steps are needed to control the rate of growth for the federal government? Badnarik: "I don't propose to 'control the growth of the federal government.' I propose to prune it until the pile of dead branches is bigger than the shrub. The steps needed to do this are simple: Cut operations, cut taxes and cut spending. As president, I'll slash the executive branch by eliminating all of its unconstitutional functions, I'll veto any budget bill that doesn't include elimination of the income tax, and I'll veto any budget bill that spends more money than reasonable projections say we'll have." AFP: Many have raised serious questions regarding the 2002 Bush tax cuts and also John Kerry's wealth-redistribution plan to adjusted taxes for higher income only. Is all of this nothing more than smoke and mirrors? Badnarik: "The Bush tax cut is a joke. It amounts to a 1 percent reduction in gross revenues, phased in over 10 years, if it even survives for that long. The Democratic tax plan isn't a joke, it's a nightmare." AFP: What do you think about a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and the return of federal tax surpluses to citizens who pay the taxes? Badnarik: I can't support a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that says, 'The IRS has to smile when it takes your money.' I propose to eliminate the income tax, and the IRS with it. The United States did quite well for more than 100 years on low, uniform tariffs and excises. "The Taxpayer Bill of Rights I support reads: It's your money. You earned it. Keep it." AFP: What are your thoughts on corporate globalism, unrestricted free-trade agreements and the growing influence of corporate PAC contributions on the election process? Badnarik: "I support real free trade. The thousands of pages of rules, regulations, dispensations and exceptions in NAFTA, GATT and other 'free trade' treaties aren't free trade. "I propose an end to trade restrictions. Period. My 'free trade treaty' won't even fill a page. "When we talk about corporate globalism, we're talking about two different things: trade across borders - which I support - and a web of subsidies and barriers, which I oppose. "As far as corporate contributions to political parties goes, you'll be surprised how quickly they go down when government is limited. If government officials have no influence to sell, the corporations will stop buying." AFP: If you are elected, what would be your solutions for the rising cost of our nation's health care system? Badnarik: "Every expansion of government into health care has driven up costs and driven down availability. Medicare, Medicaid and Nixon's deal with the HMOs ... the way to make health care cheap and accessible is to get government out of it. If you look at any good or service where government keeps its hands off, the cost of that good or service goes down over time." AFP: What are the Libertarian positions concerning gun control and the Second Amendment? Badnarik: "As president, I'll veto any new victim disarmament - 'gun control' - legislation, and I'll shut down the agencies that enforce the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws now on the books. My administration will defend that policy in court as necessary. The right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable." AFP: Mr. Badnarik, can you tell us about other Libertarian policy objectives? Badnarik: "It's not difficult to derive my policy objectives, or those of the Libertarian Party. One need only ask two questions about a proposal: Does it make us freer, or less free? And, does the Constitution allow it, or not? "We've spent 200 years making government complicated. But at bottom, it isn't complicated. Jefferson got it right in the Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among men to secure our rights. Anything less than that, or anything more, and we're in trouble. "I want to restore the kind of government that our founders bequeathed us and that we've foolishly walked away from." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*