free_man

The reality is most people do not understand what a marriage license is, the history of marriage licenses and the consequences of getting one. If two people want to contract with the "State", that is their choice, but for it to be a binding contract they need to know the implications of the contract. The Constitution for the United States of America Article I. Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts Without knowing what a license is, or a term, or a law means, you will only have a false reality.

DEA Gives Up Battle Against Hemp-Based Foods POSTED: 5:27 pm PDT September 27, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO -- Three years after the Bush administration tried to ban food products made with hemp, the government surrendered that front in the war on drugs, attorneys for the hemp industry said Monday. The Justice Department, these attorneys say, will not challenge a federal appeals court ruling that overturned the ban -- a victory for more than 200 companies that make such things as energy bars, waffles, milk-free cheese and veggie burgers with the plant that contains only trace amounts of THC, the key ingredient in marijuana. Monday night was the deadline for the government to challenge a federal appellate court's February decision to the Supreme Court that the United States cannot ban the domestic sale of hemp foods. Patrick Goggin, a San Francisco lawyer representing the Hemp Industries Association, said the government had informed the group's legal team that it would let Monday's deadline to appeal expire. "I think they're choosing their battles. They don't see this as a battle they can win," Goggin said. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined comment. The San Francisco-based appeals court said that although the Drug Enforcement Administration has regulatory authority over marijuana and synthetically derived tetrahydrocannobinol, or THC, the agency did not have the authority to ban foods derived from hemp. The court said it was not possible to get high from products with only trace amounts of the mind-altering chemical. "They cannot regulate naturally-occuring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana," the appeals court ruled. Hemp is an industrial plant related to marijuana. Fiber from the plant long has been used to make paper, clothing, rope and other products. Its oil is found in body-care products such as lotion, soap and cosmetics. Three years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the law on hold, allowing the industry to continue selling its hemp-food products with hemp produced in Canada and overseas while the legal battle continued. The trade group Vote Hemp said it would begin lobbying Congress to allow industrial hemp production in the United States, said Alexis Baden-Mayer, the group's government affairs director. "Americans are looking for healthy alternative sources of omega-3 to supplement their diets due to concerns regarding trace mercury in fish and fish oil supplements," she said. David Bronner, president of Escondido-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, which makes hemp products, including an energy bar, said he spent $200,000 funding the legal tussle over the ban. "This was a complete waste of money," he said. "Finally, I think we're gonna have some explosive growth. Everyone was kinda waiting for the legal climate to clear up." In October 2001, the DEA first declared that food products containing even trace amounts of THC would be banned under the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA ordered a halt to the production and distribution of all goods containing THC that were intended for human consumption. But in March 2002, just before those products were to be pulled from shelves, the 9th Circuit suspended that order to allow it to decide whether federal law could classify hemp food as an illegal controlled substance like heroin. In April 2002, DEA attorney Daniel Dormont argued for the ban, telling the appeals court here that "there's no way of knowing" whether some food made with hemp could get consumers high. Hemp food sellers say their products are full of nutrition, not drugs. They say the food contains such a small amount of the active ingredient in marijuana that it's impossible to feel any drug-like effects. The case is Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 03-71366. Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. A win for the good guys!

Reality is a Bitch. “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

A marriage license, more specifically, is : "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to INTERMARRY: " Black's Law Dict. p. 1124 A license is a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful. Webster's Dictionary. And it gives the "State" the legal grounds to interfere in your life. MARRIAGE LICENSE IS A PRIVILEGE FROM THE STATE and that EVERY CHILD BORN TO A FAMILY WITH A STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE IS A WARD OF THE STATE. Marriage is a covenant. Getting a license makes it a civil contract. “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

Isn't marriage between you, your significant other, and your God? What is a marriage license? (3 party contract) Why do you need permission from the "State"? (you don't) “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

A West Texas cowboy was herding his cattle in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?" The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?" The yuppie parks his car, whips out his notebook computer, connects it to his PCS phone, surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Blackberry that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with hundreds of complex formulas. He uploads all of this data via an email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniature LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves." "That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my critter?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?" "You're a consultant for the National Democratic Party." says the cowboy. "Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?" "No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked; and you don't know anything about my business . Now give me back my dog." “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

Homeland Security whistleblower removed for exposing terrorist threats by Tom Flocco Orlando, FL -- August 30, 2004 -- TomFlocco.com -- After warning American citizens via her website about bribery of U.S. immigration officials by illegal Muslims using sham marriages to secure green cards and citizenship, one of whom was reportedly linked to lead 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Khalil bin Laden, Homeland Security whistleblower Mary Schneider was removed last Thursday from her duties as an adjudications officer and directed to remain off the premises of the Orlando Citizenship and Immigration Services. Schneider, who interviews aliens for immigration benefits, was told by outside informant Christine Sharrit that her former illegal Moroccan Muslim husband Lyazid Abad had lived with Atta in a central Florida apartment sometime prior to 1997--providing evidence that Atta had lived surreptitiously in this country with or without FBI knowledge for a substantial period of time before allegedly flying an American Airlines passenger jet into the World Trade Center. Sharrit’s mother Bonnie told Schneider that Khalil bin Laden (who owned an estate in Winter Garden, Florida, an Orlando suburb just north of Walt Disney World on 9-11) was chauffeured to and from Miami and Tampa by Christine Sharrit’s husband Lyazid Abad. read entire article here http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=71 “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

read it here. http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket. We must take the profit out of war. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes. Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. - Hermann Goering, In War “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

not trying to quote anything, just trying to pass on alternative ideas, and open minds.

*AMERICA'S TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS A HOAX* By Debbie O'Hara September 15, 2004 NewsWithViews.com Most of my responders state that the points I make in my columns about what is wrong with America are well taken. Where they sometimes take exception is when I suggest that one solution to our nation's problems is to vote for someone who my readers call "out of the mainstream" like presidential candidate Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Such a move they say would be "ineffective". There is a strong feeling among many good conservatives that we must "be realistic" and work within the two-party system if we expect to make a difference. While I applaud those who are involved in the process and working hard to make their mark, it just might be that those who are working within the Republican Party are the ones who will be ineffective. One of my readers directed me to Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld's "Why Conservatives Need to Back the Republican Party ". While I don't usually comment on a fellow author's column I thought it appropriate in this case because Blumenfeld brings up several key points that I often hear by my readers in defense of why they stay with the Republican Party. The most common defense is that "third" parties are unable to raise the money to win elections and winning elections is what politics is all about. That might be good logic for a non-Christian, but isn't that atheistic logic? Unfortunately there is hardly a one of us who has not been adversely affected in some area of our thinking by our secular humanist culture. We are thinking too much like the world. Just ask yourself, how often has God worked against evil on the side of the majority or on the side with the most money? Our duty is not to "win" elections. Like with every other aspect of our lives, even at election time, a Christian's main concern should be to bring glory to God - He will provide the results. Another of Blumenfeld's comments that I often hear is that the Republican Party has a "lack of conservative backbone" that can be changed from within by electing dedicated conservatives. While we do have a handful of good people that have been elected to office on the Republican Ticket who are trying to do just that, the problem with the Republican Party is not their "backbone". The problem is that the party has been captured from within by "the enemy". Getting real pro-family people on the Republican Ticket is extremely difficult because the top brass in the party don't want them there. We had a great example of that last year in the race for governor here in California. Tom McClintock, a real pro-life, pro-family conservative, had an excellent chance of becoming our new governor, but the top brass in the Republican Party decided to throw their whole-hearted support behind pro-homosexual agenda, pro-abortion liberal, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The leaders of the party even pressured many of McClintock's supporters to switch their votes to Schwarzenegger. What the media didn't seem to want to report to the people was that a CNN poll posed a question about what would happen if Schwarzenegger dropped out of the race. The poll showed that McClintock would have beaten the "feared" Democrat Bustamante by 56 percent to 37 percent![1] So the reason Republican leadership didn't support McClintock against liberal Schwarzenegger had nothing to do with being afraid of losing the election to the Democrat. They obviously did not want a real pro-family conservative elected to office. "Political purity" is not an option so we're told by many who defend the Republican Party. We must learn to compromise. While I'm not against compromise when there is no principle involved, clear violations of the U.S. Constitution and/or biblical principles cannot be tolerated on any level. When we allow those principles to be compromised we are virtually saying that there is no right or wrong. Evil and illegal compromises are made every day by members of both parties, but they know they have nothing to fear from the people because most Americans are more loyal to one of the two political parties than to any moral principles. Party loyalty has played a large part in both the moral and economic decline of our country. For a Christian there are definite rights and wrongs that are set in stone. It is not that people who vote for "third" parties are not willing to compromise when possible, but they find voting meaningless unless they have a chance to vote for a candidate of good character. Neither of the major party contenders for president are men of strong moral character. Both Bush and Kerry look to an ever increasingly totalitarian anti-God socialist government as the answer to America's problems. How can it be that a man from the "left" and a man from the "right" can be so close in their ideology? (To see just how close, check out Chuck Baldwin's "The Bush Betrayal ") "The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy." Quote by Georgetown Professor, Carroll Quigley from his book "Tragedy and Hope" referring to the secret network that started the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), America's true ruling establishment (For more on the CFR see "Thirst For Justice "). Professor Carroll Quigley was not some "right wing radical" who was trying to make the establishment look bad. A mentor of former president Bill Clinton, Quigley was in the know about how America was being intentionally transformed from a God-fearing free country to atheistic socialism by wealthy individuals working together behind the scenes of government. These individuals figured that if they could give the people two candidates with the same socialist goals but still call one a "Democrat" and one a "Republican", they could give the people the illusion of choice while keeping the country headed in the same direction no matter who was elected to office. We can see that the American people have fallen hook, line and sinker for this tactic, because at this moment we have a Republican president who has been able to push more social programs than many Democrats would have even dared, but he still receives the support of most "conservatives". America's political system as set up by our Founding Fathers had no political parties or factions. It wasn't that they didn't know about political parties, but that they were unwelcome. When looking at the factions of Europe, our Founders didn't like what they saw - political intrigue, conspiracy, and hostile divisions. They were afraid that such a system would rip apart the Union. They hoped that in free elections it would be natural for the best men to rise to the top and be elected to office. That is why before the rise of political parties (which made necessary the Twelfth Amendment), the man with the most votes was president and the man with the second most was vice-president. While in a fallen world it might be a bit unrealistic to expect that factions would not appear among diverse peoples, what rule tells us that we must work within a two-party system rather than voting for the best individuals? We have been propagandized into believing that there are only two viable parties because it is much easier for the enemies of a free America to exercise control within a two-party system than to deal with individuals. Americans have been propagandized into following a two-party system by certain wealthy elites who have not only captured our two major parties, but also control many of our large corporations, our entertainment industry, the mass media (that explains why we didn't hear about the CNN poll giving McClintock the win for governor) and government schools. These elite socialists are able to easily propagandize us through all such medium, especially the government schools where they are able to train our children from a very young age. The push is on to get to our children from birth. I resoundingly agree with Dr. Blumenfeld's comment that the daunting problems facing conservatives are in a large part caused by the fact that "the vast majority of Christians still put their children in atheistic public schools, thus helping our secular-humanist monster create more dumbed-down brainless American adults." Most people I know that call themselves "conservative" are socialists and don't realize it. That's why they don't see how really far left the Republican Party has gone. The dumbing down process has been a great success. The only way to be an effective voter is to vote for a man of principle. If he happens to be a member of one of the major parties, fine, but chances of that are very slim because control of both major parties is in the hands of an economic elite whose goal is atheistic socialism. If neither of the major party candidates have a godly moral standard or if they are not willing to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then it is not a wasted vote to go outside of the two parties! Don't fall for the hoax. You are far more likely to waste your vote inside the parties. America was once a land of peoples who knew how to think independently. As we have become increasingly socialized and become dependent citizens, we have lost that capability. We must work at getting it back! Study the issues. Study the candidates. There is a lot at stake in the coming November elections. Don't be afraid to leave the herd. Make up your own mind. And most importantly don't fall for the two-party hoax! * The Myth of the Wasted Vote* *by Charles L. Hooper by Charles L. Hooper* Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site Recently, I was surprised to see a long-term Libertarian's car sporting a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. "What's with the Kerry bumper sticker?" I asked my friend. "Isn't it self-explanatory?" he replied sarcastically. "Okay, okay, I see that you’re going to vote for Kerry. I just want to know why. I thought you would be voting Libertarian." He then proceeded to tell me that while he doesn't like Kerry, he simply despises George W. Bush. "You don't want to waste your vote on somebody that you fundamentally disagree with, do you?" I asked him. "I've been wasting my vote for years by voting Libertarian," he replied bitterly. "Ah, but you/ will/ be wasting your vote this year because Kerry is almost assured to take California. One extra vote won't make a difference." I hadn't run the numbers, but I was sure that my friend's vote wasn't going to affect the California electoral vote and, therefore, had no chance of affecting the national result. Since our conversation I have run the numbers, and they are mind-boggling. Based on these results, reasonable people may conclude that they should never vote. But if you do decide to cast your vote, as I have, you should vote for the best candidate and abandon any attempts to displace the disliked Kerrys, Bushes, Clintons, Reagans, Carters, and Gores of the world. To run the numbers, I created a Monte Carlo computer simulation model and ran well over 300,000 simulations. My model has two pretty evenly matched main political parties and three smaller ones that fight over roughly ten percent of the vote total. I defined voting groups, each with probability distributions. With these groups defined, I ran multiple runs of the model at 5,000 iterations (5,000 elections) each while varying the number of total voters. It turns out that your one vote, and mine too, has a probability of swinging any evenly-matched election based on the following formula: Probability equals 3.64 divided by N, where N is the total number of votes cast. So for a small election, say for a homeowners' association with 100 members, your probability of casting the vote that determines the outcome is about 3.64 percent (or 0.0364). Stated differently, you'd have to vote in 27.5 elections to determine a single one. As we move up to the state and national level, the odds fall dramatically. With 11 million voters in California, where my friend and I live, the probability drops to 3.3 x 10^-7 (0.00000033), which means that you'd have to vote in over three million presidential elections to determine the winner in California just once. Of course, California isn't the whole country. California currently has 55 electoral votes out of a total of 538, with 270 needed to elect a president. Since 1852, when Californians first voted for U.S. president, California has been a key swing state in only two presidential elections. In 1876, California cast 6 electoral votes for Rutherford B. Hayes, who beat Samuel J. Tilden by the razor-thin margin of 185 to 184. In 1916, California cast 13 electoral votes for Woodrow Wilson, who beat Charles E. Hughes by 277 to 254. In either election, if California voters had gone the other direction, the national totals would have followed. In every other presidential election, however, the winner was determined regardless of how Californians voted. By acknowledging that California has been a swing state in only two of its 38 elections (5.3%), we can get to our final answer: A voter in California would have to vote in 57.5 million elections to determine one President of the United States. This ignores voting error and fraud, but even with them, there is still a point at which the official vote total swings from candidate A to candidate B. The question is whether you will cast that key vote. And the answer is that it’s extremely unlikely. What does this mean? Well, first of all it means that you'd have to vote for a very long time – 230 million years – to swing one election and all you'd have to show for it is a Bush in the White House instead of a Kerry (or visa versa). If you are like me and many other voters, you can't get very excited about either Bush or Kerry, so your final payoff would be lackluster, at best. For those who still think these odds look acceptable, consider the following comparisons. You are 12 times as likely to die from a dog attack, 34,000 times as likely to die in a motor vehicle accident, and 274 times as likely to die in a bathtub drowning as you are to swing a presidential election. My friend thinks that his Libertarian votes have been wasted and that his vote for a Democrat will matter. This analysis shows that his vote for Kerry has a vanishingly small expected value. Even if he would be willing to pay $10,000 to determine the winner in November, the expected value (probability times value) of his vote for Kerry is only $0.00017. Americans won't even stoop to pick up a penny on the ground yet every four years they happily cast votes worth one fiftieth as much. Voting may still make sense, but the overall satisfaction of participating in a great democracy must be compared to the time and costs of voting. The expected vote-swinging outcome is rounding error. In fact, if you drive to your polling place, you are approximately ten times more likely to die in an accident on the way than you are to swing that presidential election. Now, what if my friend votes for Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate? Is that vote wasted? Well, it is clear that no third-party candidate will win the 2004 election, but my friend's support would certainly help his favorite political party stay in business and therefore get noticed. While it is in business, his party will help define election issues and could even get lucky and elect a president. Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Ventura are good examples of third-party candidates who were elected. Ross Perot in 1996 and 1992, American Independent George Wallace in 1968, and Progressive Robert LaFollette in 1924 were presidential candidates who got a large percentage of the popular vote. More likely, as any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party's platforms. The same thing happened with the Socialist party early in the 20th century. As Milton Friedman points out, the Socialists failed miserably with a popular vote total that peaked at only six percent in 1912. But they succeeded in the way that matters most. Dig below the surface and you'll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist's 1928 platform has since been written into law. The votes cast for these Socialists certainly weren't wasted from the point of view of those who cast them. Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome. If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election. /September 21, 2004/ /Charles L. Hooper [send him mail ] is president of Objective Insights, a company that consults for pharmaceutical and biotech companies. His forthcoming book, coauthored with David R. Henderson, is /Thinking Works: Your Inside Track to Great Results/. Charley is a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution. / * Why I Don't Vote* *by Mark Reynolds by Mark Reynolds * Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site Have you ever played a game with someone where they insisted on violating the rules of the game as laid down? For instance, if you played Monopoly and one player just ignored the "Go To Jail" card or refused to pay the rent on Boardwalk, but the rest of the players followed the rules, who do you suppose would win the game if that player was allowed to violate all the rules? Obviously, the rule breaker would be the winner at the end of that game. Well, politics is like a big game. Only it is supposed to be a game of life that everyone is supposed to play out with certain rules. We the people laid down some rules, back in 1776 that were followed for a few years. Those rules are called The United States Constitution and they are sworn to be upheld by everyone who is sworn in as a public official. Well, if the game players swear to uphold it and then begin violating the rules right away, and they have all the guns at their disposal in the way of force, what can you expect the other players to do but to quit giving their support and take their pieces home from the game and quit? As near as I can tell the major violations of the rules began with the war of Northern aggression against the peaceful Southern states who wanted out of the marriage contract due to gross violations of the agreements by the north. The current President, Abe Lincoln, was very adept at making up his own rules as he went along with the game. Since Lincoln, every President, up and including our most recent, have violated the rules of the game. If you read the "rule book," which is the United States Constitution, you will find that many provisions are being totally ignored and in many cases are so blatantly obvious that anyone with an elementary school education can see it. Here are just a few of the hundreds of violations of the rules of the game... 1. No where does the Constitution allow the creation of a central bank so that fiat paper money can be issued. 2. No where does the Constitution allow the use of anything other than gold and silver coin for currency. 3. No where does the Constitution allow for the creation of a national police force, I.E. FBI, ATF, DEA, etc. 4. No where does the Constitution allow for the President to declare war and decide who or what nation to invade. 5. No where does the Constitution allow for the federal government to be involved in "education." 6. No where does the Constitution allow for any license to have or possess any certain type of firearm. 7. No where does the Constitution allow for the government to do background checks on firearms purchases. 8. No where does the Constitution allow for a national forest service. 9. No where does the Constitution allow for the federal government to claim ownership of any land except as specified for forts, post offices, or naval yards. 10. No where does the Constitution allow for the DIRECT taxation of wages. And this has been supported by numerous Supreme Court decisions. This list can go on and on...un-Constitutional war, un-Constructional taxes, un-Constitutional drafts, un-Constitutional control over the states... So this is how I make my protest....I REFUSE TO PLAY THE GAME AND VOTE for someone who is going to totally ignore the rules that have been laid down for the game. Why bother? /September 22, 2004/ /Mark Reynolds [send him mail ] is a web site developer in Arkansas. He and his wife Kathy homeschool their four boys, and none of them vote./ Copyright © 2004 Tom Engelhardt Two Choices for President *by Mark Thornton ** by Mark Thornton* Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site People across America are frustrated, even infuriated with the choice between Bush and Kerry. Both politicians support war and economic policies that destroy prosperity. Both would push the country in the wrong direction. Is this situation hopeless? Wendy McElroy and Charles Hooper offer us two alternatives. McElroy make a great case for not participating in the democratic process by not voting at all. Hooper suggests that you should vote, but vote for a third party candidate like Michael Badnarik . Both represent principled positions, but neither one would put a good politician in the White House. Who is right? What do we do? I believe that our situation is not hopeless, but that our hope lies not in the political process, but in convincing the people that the political process is the problem. To that end the Bush/Kerry dilemma is a good teaching tool: would Wal-Mart offer a choice between toothpaste that contained harmful bacteria and one that contained deadly parasites? That’s the choice between Bush and Kerry. Would Dell sell computers that didn’t work or that people couldn’t afford? That’s what government is – it doesn’t work and people can’t afford it. If we are to have hope for our future, we must turn our efforts to changing people’s minds , the battle between ideas , and the cause of liberty. What about the choice between Bush and Kerry? Do we ignore voting as suggested by McElroy, or do we participate with a protest vote as suggested by Hooper? I actually think that they are both right and for the same reason. Not voting is a perfectly fine alternative for either reasons of principle, or if you simply have something better to do that day. Casting your protest vote for third parties allows you to declare your principles and has the practical effect of signaling the major parties important issues (like Ross Perot’s concern about the federal deficit spending and the national debt). More than any of these reasons, they are both right because incumbent politicians and the major parties hate it when you either don’t vote or when you do vote for third parties and independents. As a former third party politician and political appointee I can tell you that these are the things they fear the most and work hardest to suppress. When people fail to participate in the political process by not voting it undermines their credibility and their authority. When you vote for third parties and independents you make your declaration that the incumbent platforms are failures and must be replaced. **//**So if you really want to stick it to Bush or Kerry, or Bush and Kerry, adopt either one of these strategies. Not voting is easy, but make sure you tell all your friends, family members, and coworkers that you are not voting, and why. Voting isn’t that hard either. Vote for third party candidates and independents in races where they are running. Vote against all incumbents (there are a few exceptions ), and don’t vote in races where a candidate is running unopposed. Voters in swing states may want to consider voting for one of the major party candidates on the theory of voting against the incumbent (especially one who has done a really bad job), or on the theory that gridlock is a good thing for the people (e.g., a Democrat President and a Republican Congress) because less legislation will be passed. These are just optional strategies, as I would never "endorse" Kerry or Bush for anything, including dogcatcher. /September 22, 2004/ /Mark Thornton [send him mail ] is an economist who lives in Auburn, Alabama. He is author of /The Economics of Prohibition /, is a senior fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute , and is the Book Review Editor for the /Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics /. He is co-author of /Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War /./ Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist 1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility. 2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. 3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason. 4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. 5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do. 6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up. 7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it. 8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin. I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth: Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world. “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

A funny thing happened on the way to 'The Truth' By Karl W. B. Schwarz Online Journal Guest Writer September 24, 2004—I am a conservative Republican who has come to the conclusion over the past 12 months that I would not vote for Bush Cheney 2004 under bribe, duress or at gunpoint. I have come to that conclusion for many reasons that are well documented and in some instances is information that is known only to myself and several executives that I work with. I have written a book about my experiences with the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Bush Cheney, and bring forth facts that I found stunning and disgusting to the point that I am convinced that both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and RNC, and our political system, are in need a serious house cleaning. America needs leadership, not an endless stream of talking heads and game show hosts to keep us entertained. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. It would also help if Americans had The Truth but that seems to be something that Washington, DC fears these days. I read the recent analysis written by Sibel D. Edmonds regarding the 9-11 Commission findings and recommendations. That article was posted on Antiwar.com for those readers that missed it. For those that do not know who Sibel Edmonds is, she is the FBI translator that Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft have gone to great lengths to silence. The 9-11 attorneys Motley & Rice zeroed in on her as a possible key witness after filing that $1 trillion lawsuit, and when that happened none of us should be surprised that Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft went into "shut her up mode." Out of curiosity as to how her facts might concur or disagree with the facts I assembled in my book, I tracked Sibel down and we had a long visit via telephone. That conversation was just another example of "don't believe everything you read" in our major media outlets. I followed her story as it developed and the media always reported to us "mushrooms" that her testimony was being blocked "due to national security" and "protecting the Global War on Terrorism." Good enough reasons I thought at first, until I had the chance to hear it from the source. During the FBI translations Sibel came across pre-9-11 drug trafficking and money laundering and that is evidently what they are trying to keep quiet. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that first, the Saudis do not need drug trafficking to generate cash flow to finance terrorism if they are in fact the culprits, and secondly, that tidbit of information does not fit what we have all been told about how al Qaeda financed the attack upon America. After I weighed it all, I thought the 9-11 attorneys might not be as interested in Sibel Edmonds' testimony as they first thought because drug trafficking and money laundering is not exactly a Saudi modus operandi. More importantly, what Sibel Edmonds found was not from counter-terrorism sources. It was from ongoing FBI investigations of Americans and foreign nationals involved in drug trafficking, money laundering and apparently pre-9-11 activities and financing of that attack. Now that explains why Emperor GW cannot dare let Sibel Edmonds testify under oath in that $1 trillion lawsuit, or before Congress or before the 9-11 Commission. We have not been told that Americans might have been in part involved in 9-11. Wouldn't that be a hoot compared to the endless lies we have heard from the Bush administration? No wonder her testimony (if ever heard in an open forum) is giving heart palpitations to Emperor George, Prince Dick, and Squire Ashcroft. Hmmm, I said to myself. That Sibel story sounds familiar, like Iran-Contra, which was in part run through my home state of Arkansas. Who in this menagerie of current "bad actors" has that type of MO and history, including involvement in Iran-Contra? The first name that comes to mind is Richard Armitage of the State Department and reportedly our go between with the Pakistani ISI. Hmmm, it was the former director of ISI that wired Mohammed Atta that $100,000 for 9-11 and then was conveniently in Washington, DC, when 9-11 happened, meeting with Senators Graham and Kyl and Congressman Porter Goss, Bush's pick to keep the lid on at CIA. Hmm, Richard Armitage, drug trafficking, money laundering, Iran-Contra, Pakistan ISI, what is the connection? Then there is Baron Rumsfeld over at DoD, who seemed to dart around like a bee pollinating CBW (chemical and biological weapons) to Saddam under the Reagan administration, being part of Iran-Contra, planning and practicing the invasion of Afghanistan in early 2001 well in advance of 9-11, attacking on October 7, 2001, to get rid of those silly Taliban folks, and immediately after 9-11 wanted to start planning to go kick Saddam really good. Somewhere along the way Baron Rummy forgot to tell us all what Karen Kwiatkowski disclosed, that being the Pentagon was running a little shop of lies known as The Office of Special Plans to skew intelligence to fit the policy that Emperor George II, Prince Dick and Baron Rumsfeld wanted us all to believe. I think the entire world now knows they lied, so no sense wasting time here to belabour that point any further today. Before I forget, of course George H.W. Bush was vice president and former head of the CIA when Iran-Contra was being done as a CIA black op. CIA, GHWB, Drug trafficking, money laundering, Armitage, Pakistan ISI, what is the connection? I seem to recall that when Barry Seal's body was found (he was the drug part of Iran-Contra) they found George H W Bush's personal telephone number in his car. Curious indeed. Maybe GW should slap "SECRET" all the way back to before his birth just to be on the safe side. However, I have come across other facts due to personal and professional reasons that the Bush–Cheney Administration and the 9-11 Commission evidently do not what you as a reader to know. Do you recall in March 2003 when the FBI and Ashcroft flashed the photographs and name of Adnan G. El Shukrijumah across our TV screens and the next day in major newspapers? Following my divorce in 2002, I dated a lady from Canada for close to 20 months and when those photographs first appeared she recognized him immediately. Two of the five photographs shown on the FBI website directly involved how she knew it was him. He was in Hamilton, Ontario, at McMaster University and under an alias. The call to the FBI was made from my home office telephone. The FBI did not go after him. They don't want the "mushroom Americans" to know that fact, either. If you happen to have caught US Attorney Comey's press conference on Shukrijumah recently, at least one aggressive (i.e. awake) reporter pinned him down that they do not have enough evidence on Shukrijumah to arrest or convict him. Hmmm, then why run his name and photographs on the national and international TV stations claiming he is the ultimate boogeyman? They are looking for him for what exact reason? I have repeatedly asked the FBI to update their website to include that new alias or provide an explanation as to why they have not done so. I have asked the same of Homeland Security and they of course, never respond to mere American citizens who pose an embarrassing question as to their ineptitude. Where it gets even more curious is following positive ID of Shukrijumah and the FBI did not go after him, they called the person I know in Canada that knows him, and demanded that she never tell anyone that she had identified him within 10 minutes of them running his photographs and name. They have since run his name and photographs at least four more times since March 2003, pretending to be looking for him, and I emphasize, pretending to be looking for him. They had a chance and did not even go after him. The FBI never gets around to mentioning that Adnan G. El Shukrijumah and the rest of his family have lived in Florida since 1986 without incident. That is, until someone dreamed up what I am beginning to believe is a GWOT (global war on terror) Fable to cover up other actions. Hmmm, who is dropping his name as the boogeyman and he is not the boogeyman? I want to know who is doing that and why they are doing it. Then it gets even more curious. I met a company in 1999 about oil and gas row across South America in key places. The name of that company is Bridas Corporation of Argentina. Well, 1999 was a long time before 9-11 and it was of little importance to me at that time when they told me that they had filed a $15 billion interference of contract lawsuit against Unocal for interference of contract in Turkmenistan. They also informed me that they had signed contracts with General Rashid Dostum (that Uzbek who controls the northern part of Afghanistan) and the Taliban. Seems Bush and Cheney do not want anyone to know that Bridas had contracts to build that pipeline across Afghanistan and we now control it after October 7, 2001, and the attack we levied on Afghanistan. That pipeline is now under construction, is under US control, so it's Miller Time, Emperor GW finally got a "Mission Accomplished." Now, why didn't Emperor George, Prince Dick or the 9-11 Commission ever say a word about a non-US company having beat the US to that pipeline contract across Afghanistan? Did any of you readers hear a word about Bridas Corporation, Afghanistan, or that pipeline, or that lawsuit in Texas? Didn't think so. That sort of explains to me why Emperor George wanted a whole new CIA division just for Argentina, since Bridas is from Argentina. For you information sleuths, on September 9, 2003, Bridas Corporation prevailed in the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals on an arbitration award, reportedly over $500 million, in the matter of Bridas Corporation v. Turkmenneft, the oil ministry arm of Turkmenistan. For the geographically impaired, that is the northwest end of the pipeline that is going across Afghanistan even as you read this, but under US control. Of course, the Bush friends went running to the US Supreme Court, but on March 22, 2004, the high court denied writ of certiorari and left intact the decision out of New Orleans; matter of Turkmenneft v. Bridas Corporation 03-1018, U.S. Supreme Court. Drug trafficking, money laundering, 9-11, attacking to take away that oil pipeline contract so Emperor George can claim "Mission Accomplished" on something, all of the big Caspian Basin oil deals that need that pipeline. Seems Sibel Edmonds might have stumbled across a key link that might unravel why the World Trade Center (WTC) is now a hole in the ground and US companies now control a pipeline they had not a chance of controlling, that is until 9-11 and October 7, 2001. I keep thinking about that Project for a New American Century announcement in 2000: In 2000 PNAC issued a report predicting that their proposed "transformation" of U.S. military and diplomatic policy in the Middle East wouldn't come very quickly, barring the occurrence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." Hmm, Pearl Harbor and WTC, what is the connection? Guess what law firm represented Turkmenneft to keep Bridas tied up in court? Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, and senior partner Richard Ben Veniste was sitting on that 9-11 Commission while Bridas was winning. His law firm stands to make hundreds of millions in fees having now positioned themselves in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Isn't DC policy a wonderfully profitable endeavor? I was part of a 9-11 program presented in New York City and when the panel I was on was completed, a woman got past security and came running up to me on the stage, wanting to tell me something. She had just been fired from a job in Argentina with one of our major banks and informed that all of Argentina is hoping an American figured out what Bush/Cheney, et al, did to Bridas Corporation. I had a strange peace before that presentation, maybe I knew she would be there to let me know that my information is right on target. Lastly, eight of the 10 9-11 Commission members (that I know of) are directly benefiting from 9-11 or companies they represent or sit on the board of directors of that pipeline, that big Caspian Oil deal being "open for business" soon, thanks to the US controlled pipeline, so I think we can all rest assured that The Truth Commission on 9-11 has yet to convene. The ones with serious conflicts are Kean, Fielding, Lehman, Thompson, Hamilton, Gorelick, Ben Veniste, and Roemer and just for kicks, a former Lee Hamilton staffer, Christopher Kojm, was in the back office with Zelikow. Stay tuned—there is plenty of truth to be found. There are few if any truth seekers in Washington, DC. The truth will not set some of them free. Karl W. B. Schwarz lives in Little Rock, Ark., and is the author of "One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, a Conservative Republican Speaks Out." He is the President and Chief Executive Office of Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC and I-nets Security Systems, a designer of intelligence and UAV systems. You can email him here. http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/092404Schwarz/092404schwarz.html “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

WAR IS A RACKET http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

Pompano Beach Fl. - Pompano Beach Fl. - Free-Market News Network, Corp. (FMNN) will provide Internet broadcasting for the “Peoples Debates” featuring Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party and David Cobb of the Green Party. The debate will take place on Thursday, September 30, at 5 p.m., at the Holiday Inn Ballroom, 1350 S. Dixie Highway, in Coral Gables. Exclusive live internet coverage will be available for viewing at www.FreeMarketNews.com .Coverage will begin at 4:30 PM and is expected to wrap up at approximately 7:30 PM. The open-format debate will be a stark contrast to the other Miami “debate” featuring President George Bush and challenger Senator John Kerry. Unlike the scripted, stilted affairs offered by the debates between the two “major,” candidates, the Peoples Debate’s offers a free-wheeling exchange of ideas and will allow for uncensored questions from the public and students representing a wide range of viewpoints on issues of critical import to the nation and the economy. “We’re pleased the Internet-based leverage provided by FMNN is being utilized for this worthwhile political cause,” said Anthony Wile, Founder and President of FMNN. “When the Peoples Debate sponsors looked around for the ideal web-based broadcaster, they needed to go no further than FMNN. In a fairly short period of time, FMNN has established itself as a leader in the Internet news niche and as a New Media pioneer - combining internet radio, eTV and print publications for maximum viewer benefit and information access.” And Mr. Wile added, “Recent surveys find the ‘Net continues to make progress as New Media’s flagship information provider. One survey even showed that almost half of all information consumers under 30 named the Internet as their preferred choice for entertainment and information.” Mr. Wile was referring to a recent report from the Online Publishers Association (OPA), revealing, according to MacWorld UK, “that 45.6 of 18-54 year-olds will turn to the Internet, rather than the TV, as first choice for home entertainment. … The OPA surveyed 1,235 U.S. respondents in the following age bands: 18-24; 25-34 and 35-54. In a head-to-head comparison, online media compared very well with traditional entertainment formats.” Two non-partisan student organizations, the University of Miami’s Council for Democracy and the Miami-Dade College Student Senate, are sponsoring the unrestricted, open format debate along with the Center for Voting and Democracy, a nonprofit, non-partisan Maryland-based organization. Mr. Anderson, the former Republican congressman and independent presidential candidate who received 6 million votes in 1980, is the chair of the Center for Voting and Democracy and will present an opening statement prior to the debate. “This open debate will provide students in South Florida and throughout the nation an unparalleled opportunity to realize the richness, substance and diversity of American discourse outside the two-party monopoly,” said Edward Martos, President of the Council for Democracy, a non-partisan student organization dedicated to raising political awareness. FMNN: (www.FreeMarketNews.com) Through its media-rich Internet site at www.freemarketnews.com, FMNN offers innovative private solutions to public problems from top free-market thinkers around the world. contact: Anthony Wile: ph: 954-969-1201 / fx: 954-969-1101 / awile@freemarketnews.com Unscripted Debate Offers Voters a Rare Opportunity to Hear Issues Not Discussed in the Exclusive, Two-Party Controlled Debates A rare debate among four vice presidential candidates - from the Libertarian, Constitution and Green parties, as well as Ralph Nader’s independent ticket - will take place on Tuesday, October 5, at the John Patrick Theatre at Baldwin Wallace College in Cleveland, Ohio, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Debate organizers say the debate between Richard Campagna, Chuck Baldwin, Patricia LaMarche and Peter Camejo will offer voters a stark contrast to the watered-down and scripted banter expected from the Edwards-Cheney debate taking place the same day in the same city. The debate is unusual not only because so many diverse viewpoints will be represented, but also because of its format. All questions for the candidates will come from Baldwin College students. Following the hour and a half long debate, there will be an intermission and then the debate participants and audience will watch a live broadcast of the staged, exclusive “debate” between Edwards and Cheney. At approximately 10:30 p.m., following the conclusion of the Edwards-Cheney exchange, the four vice presidential candidates gathered at Baldwin Wallace College will offer their rebuttals. The four vice presidential candidates have joined together in unprecedented solidarity to advance a common interest of democratizing the American political system and giving voters the choices that they demand and deserve. A recent Zogby poll found that over 40% of all Americans would like to see David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, Michael Peroutka and Ralph Nader participate in the televised presidential debates. The Baldwin-Wallace Student Government is the sponsor of the vice presidential debate. “Baldwin Wallace students are proud to sponsor an event of this caliber which gives voters an opportunity to hear all voices - the essence of a true democracy. We’re excited to share this experience with our students, local community and with the entire nation as well.” said Chris Glassburn, Senator at Baldwin-Wallace. Joint Release Please Contact: Jason Neville (Cobb/LaMarche): Jason@votecobb.org 504-338-3683 Ed Noyes (Badnarik/Campagna): ednoyes@natel.net 641-233-1222 Rachel Odes (Nader//Camejo): rachel@votenader.org 510-459-0614 Scott Whiteman (Peroutka/Baldwin) scott@peroutka2004.com 410-768-2280 x 292 “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

http://www.draftedintoslavery.com/[url] “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless

An Honest Debate Between Bush and Kerry by Anthony Gregory Jim Lehrer: Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered together for the first presidential debate of 2004, between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, representing the two political parties that rule America and control the Commission on Presidential Debates. Welcome, gentlemen. Bush and Kerry: (in unison) Thank you, good to be here. Jim Lehrer: The format of the debate is as follows. First, the two candidates will begin with their opening remarks. Then I will ask a series of questions, making sure not to stray into forbidden topics, and the candidates will respond with their memorized talking points. There are technically time limits, but we never really observe them. Backstage, Senator Kerry won the coin toss, but the president insisted the coin was biased, and so we went on to rock, paper, scissors. The president won, four out of seven, which he insisted was the way the game is played. Mr. President? Bush: Thank you. My fellow Americans. I have been your president for four years. It has been a great time of prosperity and success for me. I want to do it again. I know that a lot of people really can’t stand the sight of me now – can’t stand the way I talk, and my Texas way of talking my mind. But I’m confident that I’ll be popular in the future, like almost all presidents are, in the end – in the history books. America was attacked on September 11, 2001, and we must not forget how we felt on that day, when we decided it was time to unite behind me. The very security of my job depends on it. In response to September the 11th, I enacted strong laws that the federal government wanted to impose but never before had an excuse to. I took us to war in the Middle East, invading two countries and killing thousands of people who got in the way, including terrorists. Terrorists like al Qaeda. I want to create a US empire. It’s good to be the king, but it’s even better to be emperor of the world. People worship you. They respect you. I get free food at fancy dinners, and I know that I will for the rest of my life. It’s even better than being the son of the president, except you can’t sleep in as much. I also like giving away other people’s money and saying it’s because I’m compassionate. This is why I want to give people money to buy homes, because I care about being thought of as compassionate. By making sure hundreds of billions of tax dollars go to corporations, defense contractors, rich farmers and religious charities, I also get to say I’m conservative. It works out well for me. This election is an important choice for every American – every American voter, every citizen, to make. Do you want to continue with me, George W. Bush, the guy who knows how to blow up cities and do it with a smile? Or do you want to go with that boring wimp over there? It’s not a hard choice for me. I like being president. Thank you very much. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Kerry. Kerry: This is indeed a big choice for all Americans. Americans must ask themselves: Do we want to recklessly go to war, without international coalitions and diplomatic tact? Or do we want a president who knows how to get the French and the Germans in on the killing? More than one thousand Americans have died in the Iraq war. I would have made sure that at least five hundred of them were foreigners instead. Our great country used to go to war, killing thousands and swinging our brute force all over the globe, without losing the respect of the world. I want to return to the old-fashioned ways of American empire, before Mr. Cowboy here ruined it all by waging war without a UN seal of approval. The UN was designed to make global hegemony more palatable to the world’s peoples. I say we use it. Furthermore, America’s economy is on the decline. I want to change that, or at least create the illusion of changing that, by imposing socialist healthcare and forbidding Americans from trading freely with the rest of the world. I want a stronger, smarter, more hip America – an America that knows how to pronounce the names of the countries it conquers, and understands the math behind its bankrupt social security system. When I speak with the average man on the street who has less than one thousandth of my wealth, I hear where he’s coming from he says he isn’t any better off than four years ago. I must say I’m touched hearing Americans everywhere talk about rising healthcare costs, drugs on the streets, crime in the schools, assault weapons in criminal hands, broken alliances, lost jobs and outsourced dreams. And I know the best thing for me to do is promise I can fix these problems, fix the world, and hopefully I can convince enough Americans to place their trust in me, so I can become president and rule the world, instead of Mr. Bush. I’ve been a public servant for many years, and it’s my turn to be Numero Uno. Bush: He’s not the only one who knows Spanish, you know. Él no es único quién – quién, uh, uh sabe ispanole – you know. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Bush, it is still Mr. Kerry’s turn to speak. Kerry: That’s all right. I didn’t have anything important to say, anyway. Jim Lehrer: Alright. First question. Mr. Kerry, how do you plan to reduce healthcare costs for Americans? Kerry: Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Saying that bumper-sticker slogan is the first step – the first step to get me votes from the Left who might oppose my warmongering, but share a common vision of Soviet-style hospitals. The second step is to nationalize the industry, getting the pharmaceutical corporations that supported my campaign, the medical lobbying groups that did the same, all together in a room. Telling them we’re going to have a universal healthcare system. Together we’ll figure out how to socialize the system, while maintaining corporate profits, expanding government power and spending, and strengthening our voting base. Jim Lehrer: Sorry, but, do you say this is a way to cut costs? Kerry: Oh. Well, yes, in a sense. Since the new system won’t provide for all sorts of fancy services we currently pay for. Certain surgeries and medicines are just too expensive. No need even to have those in the national system. Who needs a CAT scan or liver transplant, anyway? I’ll be able to afford them no matter what. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Bush, same question. Bush: Your last question was the one when you asked Kerry if he was sure – Jim Lehrer: No, no. The question is, How will you reduce healthcare costs? Bush: Maybe I should switch doctors. Jim Lehrer: No. How would you reduce national healthcare costs? Bush: The answer is, we say free enterprise. I believe in free enterprise, and that free enterprise should be encouraged, strengthened and protected by the federal government. I also say that all children and elderly deserve healthcare, and that it is the role of the government to provide it. What I would do is I would ask the pharmaceutical corporations that donate to my campaign – not Kerry’s, see, this is where we disagree – and the lobbyists that I like, into a room. We would sit in a room. But a different room than Kerry’s room. And we would figure out a way for the government to provide healthcare to Americans by giving lots of tax money to the big companies, but I wouldn’t call it national healthcare. That might lose me votes. So I say free enterprise. Jim Lehrer: And this will reduce the costs? Bush: I don’t know. How would I know? Do I look like a doctor? I’m the president, not a doctor. You know, I think my healthcare system would be very good for my reelection in 2008 – once we change the Constitution to let me run again, with Arnold Schwarzenegger as my Vice President. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Bush, what are your plans to improve education in America? Bush: Strengthen local schools. Increase government spending while saying I want to get – place decisions in the hands of local schools. That’s the safe way to go at it. Also, more of those tests with the funny bubbles and the #2 pencils. That’s the way to make young schools read, to make little children alliterative. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Kerry? Kerry: We should attack the president’s education policies. If Democrats complain that the Republicans don’t spend enough on education, they’ll spend more than we ever hoped to, all while saying they’re giving local schools more power. This is best for all of us. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Kerry, how do you propose to stop outsourcing of jobs and reduce our trade deficit? Kerry: The iron fist of government. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Bush? Bush: I like his answer, but I prefer to say, "free trade with rigorous enforcement of trade laws." That way people don’t know what I’m talking about. Jim Lehrer: Very well. Next question. President Bush, what do you propose to do to enhance security in America against terrorists, without compromising civil liberties? Do you support strengthening the Patriot Act? Bush: I support whatever my advisors tell me to do so, and I don’t give a flying fig about civil liberties. Do I look like they’re going to stop me in the airport? I’m the president. Why would I care? I just want to get reelected. We’re at war, you know. I’m a war president, just like Franklin Roosevelt and the president during the Civil War. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Kerry? Kerry: Mr. Bush’s answer is the wrong answer for America. The proper answer, the answer that corresponds to the man who should be in the Whitehouse, which is me, is that civil liberties must be protected, parts of the Patriot Act must be strengthened without hurting civil rights, and Bush must be verbally attacked so I sound like I’m offering a different policy. That is the answer I hope will get me into the Whitehouse. Jim Lehrer: Fair enough. Mr. Kerry, what is the proper course for US forces in Iraq, and how does it relate to the greater role of the US in the region? Kerry: If there’s one issue my opponent here must answer for, it is his war on Iraq. I don’t see why I should have to answer for it. (Pause) Kerry: But if you insist, I think this man has done everything wrong in Iraq. He didn’t get the coalition he needed to wage the war in a more politically popular manner. He didn’t reach across the negotiation table, and reach out to other countries. He should have sought diplomatic solutions, and the reason I voted for the resolution was because it was ambiguously worded and I knew I could weasel my way out of it. Jim Lehrer: Is that all you would have done differently? Asked other countries to join in? Kerry: I might have also attacked a different country. Who knows which one? I don’t know. Presidents often have to act on a whim, it’s more fun that way. I wholeheartedly endorse Bush’s usurpation of power in the office of the presidency – I admire that office, and want it myself. But we’ve already done Iraq. Let’s go to Africa, I say! The real implication of the president’s mismanagement of Iraq is that it will be harder to conquer more countries now, especially with him in charge. We’ve lost our credibility to conquer. Elect me, and I can convince the world that American imperium is back the way it used to be in the good old days, under Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Jim Lehrer: Do you think we should leave Iraq? Kerry: I don’t know. Why is everyone asking me questions about his mistake? It’s not fair. Just vote for me if you were against the war, or if you support it but want it done right. Jim Lehrer: Mr. Bush, would have you done anything differently with Iraq? And when do you propose we leave? Bush: You know what? I agree with Kerry on this. I shouldn’t have to answer these questions, because I already went to war with Iraq. But if you must know, yeah, I would have done things differently – I would have done different things. Jim Lehrer: Like what? Bush: I’m not sure. I’ll have to ask Dick Cheney. He’ll get back to me after he reads the new issue of the Weekly Standard, or National Review. He tells me those magazines have big words and complicated ideas, so he goes through them and tells me what to do, without the filters of the news bias. Jim Lehrer: Oh. Okay. Well, Mr. President, what are your plans to catch the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11? Bush: First of all, I don’t think it’s fair for me to have to draw up – make plans before I even know if I’m going to be president or not. I mean, I’ll have time to decide what to do after I win. And let us not forget 9/11. When you’re thinking that Iraq is a little harder than we all expected, and good Americans are gallantly giving their lives up there everyday, just remember that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and 9/11 was the worst day in America’s history. Saddam and 9/11. Remember those two. Dick tells me that if Americans put those two together, they’ll conclude that I’m the man to vote for. Jim Lehrer: How about you, Mr. Kerry? What are your plans? Kerry: I’m not even going to answer. If Bush doesn’t have to answer, neither do I. I won’t lose any votes if I just keep quiet on this one. Every time I open my mouth, I lose votes. Jim Lehrer: Last few questions. Some Americans have complained that the two parties have become increasingly identical. What do you say to them? Kerry: I say that it’s not true. We offer very different visions of America. I offer an America with a President Kerry. He wants an America with a President Bush. Bush: That’s my answer, too. I want an America with a President Kerry. He wants a President Bush America. Jim Lehrer: Well, what do you say about the claims that we’ve become a single party state? Bush: It’s not true. That’s what the Democrats say. I’m a unifier. I want to work with them closely, find agreement on everything important, to make sure we have two different parties. Kerry: I’m with him on this one. Jim Lehrer: Would the two of you ever merge, and make one party? Bush: Why bother? The way it is, we can have these fun debates – these campaigns, and all this talking about Vietnam, and no one will notice all the people I’m killing now. Kerry: I have to agree with the president on this, as well. In this glorious campaign we are establishing bold precedents for future campaigns, and the security of my job, assuming I am the next president, will depend on engaging in trivialities in 2008, instead of focusing on any damage I may have caused with my power. Jim Lehrer: Thank you, President Bush and Senator Kerry, for that refreshingly honest debate. September 28, 2004 http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory34.html