Badnarik Arrested BY Professional Criminals in St. Louis

It probably wasn't in your local newspaper, but on Friday, October 8, 2004, the Anti-Free Speech and Anti-Equal Protection people struck again. Since the Committee On Biasing Presidential Debates (CBPD) has set rules of participation only Republocratic candidates can meet, third-party candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) tried to cross a police line to enter the building at George Washington University in St. Louis where the 2nd Presidential "debate" took place, and both were arrested by the St. Louis branch office of the nation's largest and most powerful R.I.C.O., the police.

This reminds me of when I used to get arrested at anti-abortion protests for trying to prevent murder, and also a few times I was arrested in DeKalb County, Illinois, on completely false charges because my pro-life and anti-corruption rhetoric angered public officials and the prominent citizens who were part of the old-boy's network with whom those corrupt public officials were in cahoots. Fortunately, none of the charges got very far in court.

I will not vote for Badnarik or Cobb because they both support keeping abortion legal; however, I do not consider them criminals. Au contraire, the real criminals are the ones who refused to let them debate, and those who have encouraged abuse of police authority by anti-Constitution policies such as the obscene Patriot Act (please excuse my foul language).

Here is a PARTIAL list of the real criminals:

George W. Bush, who repeatedly has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution;
John F. Kerry, who as Senator supported the P****** A** and also wants to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, including partial-birth abortion;
The CBPD, who also ejected lawyers for the Arizona Libertarian Party who were attempting to comply with a court order to serve notice to the CBPD to appear at a hearing on Tuesday, October 12, on a motion to show cause. The CBPD and Arizona State Univ., site of the 3rd "debate" the following day, are being sued by the ALP for violating Arizona's state constitution by violating Badnarik's right to equal protection, and for using tax dollars for partisan political activity on behalf of Bush and Kerry, since the debate is taking place on the campus of a state-supported university;
And, of course, the Injustice Department and its godfather, John Asscrap, who has abused his authority and violated the Constitution more than any of his predecessors in U.S. History, except Janet Nero, who burned Waco and blamed it on the Christains, and whose henchmen kidnapped Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint and forcibly handed him over to Fidel Castro.

Asscrap oughtta know better. After all, he was the one who lost a Senate race to a dead man, because the governor ILLEGALLY promised to appoint his widow; and because, in another gross violation of equal protection, voters who lived in St. Louis (sound familiar?) were allowed to vote later than voters who lived elsewhere in Missouri. If you dead, remember this: in Chicago, you vote for the Democrats; in Missouri they vote for you.

But some people never learn. Asscrap certainly didn't.

Why Libertarian and Constitution Parties should merge

I really think that if a serious challenge is to be mounted to the two-party oligopoly, a certain amount of strategy is in order, as well as a willingness to lay aside differences on a few issues if there is agreement on most issues. Furthermore, not only do parties like the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have to compare their platforms to one another, they also have to compare their platforms to those of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Libertarians by their very nature will draw most of their votes from the right because Republicans and Libertarians both tend to advertise themselves as supporters of limited government, while Democrats tend to promote Big Government. But if that draw is to have an impact on either party, I believe the Libertarian Party needs to adopt a pro-life stance. If they cannot accept that unborn babies have the same rights as born babies, at the very least they should support overturning Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and Stenberg vs. Carhart on 10th Amendment grounds, namely that in all those cases the "Senile Court" violated the separation of powers and usurped the authority of state legislatures. The main obstacle to many frustrated conservatives switching to the Libertarian Party is its stance on abortion which is currently pro-choice.

So why isn't Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party drawing more votes from the right? First, the LP is bigger, better known and better organized. The CP is too new to have gained that status. Most people don't even know it was originally the Taxpayer's Party.

Also, while Peroutka's website makes it clear a Peroutka Administration will not infringe on the legislative powers of the states, Peroutka's harsh anti-gay rhetoric leaves some to believe he will try to use government to impose judeo-christian morality on the American people. Even libertarians who believe the Bible do not believe this is any of the government's business, and the CP will not draw very many votes with that kind of rhetoric. People who are both pro-life and anti-gay already have their candidate in George W. Bush. It is people who are pro-life, but support gay rights, who could be swayed by either the CP or a pro-life LP. In a close race that would be a serious wound to the GOP.

Here is where the CP and LP agree:

--much lower taxes
--limited government that only does what is allowed by the Constitution
--the use of our military ONLY for national self-defense, not for nation-building
--absolute freedom of speech and religion, government completely neutral
--an unregulated free-market economy where only outright fraud can be punished by the government
--abolishing the obscene Patriot Act which urinates and defecates on the Bill of Rights (note: Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards voted FOR the Patriot Act)
--end eminent domain and also the extortion of private property by the government using either terrorism or drugs as an excuse
--the issue of same-sex marriages and civil unions should be decided by the state legislatures, not by Congress or the courts. Many LP members also feel this way about abortion and most other issues.


Where the LP and CP disagree:
-- the CP is unapologetically pro-life, while LP members are divided on abortion and the leadership of the LP leans pro-choice. Both parties agree the taxpayers should NEVER be forced to pay for anyone's abortion.
--the LP does not believe the government has any constitutional authority to prohibit drugs; the CP opposes some of the tactics used in the "war on drugs" such as the seizing of property, but does not support legalization.
--the CP believes America is to be a Christian nation within the parameters set by the Constitution; the LP believes the government is to be completely neutral on matters of religion. The CP supports allowing voluntary prayer in schools, for example, while the LP supports privatizing education entirely.

What the CP and LP should agree as a compromise:
--that the Federal courts do not have the authority to impose any aspect of the N.O.W.'s agenda, including abortion, on the American people. The issue of abortion should be returned to the state legislatures, meaning Roe v. Wade and other abortion-related decisions by the SCOTUS must be overturned. Members of the combined party are free to disagree on whether the SCOTUS should emphasize the separation of powers, thus giving unlimited authority to the states, or equal protection, thus encouraging (and possibly requiring) states to extend legal protection to unborn babies;
--that by merging under a pro-life banner, on either grounds, will result in more support from the voters than either party is capable of attracting by itself; and thus a more measurable impact on the Democrat and Republican Parties;
--that the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate sexual orientation or marriage, except to prohibit forcible rape/sodomy and to require that the parties in any sexual relationship, including marriage, have reached a reasonable age of consent as determined by the state legislatures;
--that the Federal government has no authority to prohibit drugs or medication except for those known to be deadly; and that, within reason, states are free to restrict the use of mind-altering substances if they can establish a compelling interest such as a tendency for users to become violent. In any case, a physician must be free to prescribe marijuana or anything else if it is the best treatment for his or her patient, withouth fear of prosecution;
--and that government must be completely neutral on matters of religion and do exactly as the First Amendment says: neither try to establish a religion nor infringe upon the freedom of individuals to express and practice their religious beliefs unhindered, whether on public or private property. As with any other issue, the government's responsibility is limited to acting against force and fraud. In the absence of either the government must keep its hands off.

MM

Which candidate is most mainstream on abortion?

This is one issue where the mainstream media has badly misinformed the public. To some degree Zogby has debunked the Media Myth (and also the "Moderate" Republican Myth) about women insisting on voting for pro-choice candidate. Turns out the women who are so adamant about a candidate's support for abortion rights are a small demographic group making up less than 10% of all female voters: single women 30 and under. The rest are either evenly divided on abortion or slightly lean pro-life, and in any case they tend to choose candidates on other issues like the economy, education and (in this election cycle) terrorism.

The media has been reasonably honest about where the candidates stand on abortion, but very dishonest about where the American people stand. The following rundown will explain where some of the media's dishonest reporting comes from; the rest is just propaganda.

Here is where Americans stand on abortion. All percentages are rounded to the nearest 5 percentage points. When a candidate's position coincides with a particular group, that is where I mention the candidate.

Strong pro-life: 30 percent
About 15 percent believe abortion should be illegal, no exceptions. I have yet to come across a candidate who believes this.

Another 15 percent, myself included, believe abortion should be legal only to save the mother's life. This group would include Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate. It also would include most pro-life libertarians and some Republicans like Pat Buchanan, Rush "Pinball", and the late Ronald Reagan.

Moderate pro-life: 30 percent
Another 30 percent would add forcible rape and incest to the circumstances where abortion should be legal, and THIS is the mainstream position. Adherents include George W. Bush and his father, Bob Dole and probably the majority of Republicans. Problem is, many voters in this group consider themselves pro-choice because they are concerned a ban on abortion would not include those "hard cases". The mainstream media is more than happy to oblige them, of course, and routinely lumps them in with those who are truly pro-legal abortion. Yet they don't make that error for the candidates. I wonder why....

Moderate pro-choice: 25 percent
Among the pro-choice minority, about 25 percent believe abortion should be legal on demand up to a certain stage of the pregnancy, usually 3 months. After that, they believe abortion only should be legal if the mother's life or physical health (and they don't mean the mother has a headache) is in serious danger. Among the candidates in the 2004 Democratic primary, only Rep. Richard Gephardt even comes close to being in this group. Also, people in this group are divided on both whether and when taxes should be used to pay for abortions.

Strong pro-choice: 5 percent
Some people believe abortion, including partial-birth abortion (PBA), should be legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, but that government should never be allowed to force one person to pay for another person's abortion, through taxation or any other means. This hard-core libertarian position is shared by the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik.

Pro-abortion: 10 percent
These are the people who not only believe abortion, including PBA, should be legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, but that taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion. This group includes John Kerry, Al Gore, "Billary" Clinton, and all the 2004 Democratic primary candidates except Gephardt; and also Ralph Nader, David Cobb, and most Demorats (and "moderate" Republicans) in the Senate. It is also the position held by more than 90% of those who work for the mainstream media: newspaper reporters and editors, TV newscasters, etc. It is the position held by hate groups like the N.O.W., and most disturbingly it is the position held by the United Nations and the European Union.

MM

Draft? WHAT draft?

The liberals' policy? If you can't find something bad about your conservative/libertarian opponent, make something up. No, I am not going to talk about my personal experience running for local office in heavily pro-choice and pro-corruption Sycamore, Illinois. My focus is on recent rumors that Bush intends to reinstate the draft, and this time there won't be any deferments for college. Just like he intends to abolish Social Security. Yeah, right.... You don't ever have to worry about a GOP President eliminating a 7.65% tax on ALL earned income of the working poor.

There actually are two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, but they are all sponsored by DEMOCRATS. The Senate version by retiring Sen. Ernest Hollings, and the House version by more than a dozen sponsors, ALL Democrats. Sounds like they created the very thing they intend to use to scare young adults into voting for Kerry. The GOP had nothing to do with it.

There is a draft-related bill being sponsored by three Republicans, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), but the bill is to eliminate Selective Service registration, currently the closest thing the U.S. has to a draft.

What the Democrats are doing is a version of a common campaign trick used against anti-establishment candidates in Sycamore: have an insider file a false criminal complaint against a candidate and the crooked cops arrest him, send a press release to the local papers and try to use the arrest as a campaign issue. It does not matter which political party the insider is affiliated with, because the "Republicans" in that part of Illinois would be Democrats anywhere else.

MM

Kerry "won" the debate, probably not the election

In 1984, Ronald Reagan certainly was not in his best form. There was no question that Walter Mondale won the debate. Reagan not only did not seem alert or prepared, his performance left wide-open the question of whether the 73-year-old incumbent was too old to be President.

Thankfully, there was a second debate and Reagan did much better. He put the age issue to rest with one of the most famous lines from any Presidential debate: "I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". Mondale was 57 and had been the Vice President; part of the joke was that Reagan was speaking in relative terms. As y'all know (in Texas, "y'all" is a word), Reagan won by the biggest landslide in U.S. history, with only Minnesota and the District of Columbia voting for Mondale.

The mainstream media will say the Democratic candidate won the debate, no matter what. That is why it is significant that the pro-Kerry media also said Kerry's win was not decisive. "Kerry scores, but no knockout" read one headline. The front-runner does not need to win the debate, he only needs to not make any serious gaffes that could undermine public confidence in him.

On http://electoral-vote.com the debate did not appear to change much. Most significantly, the most recent poll of Florida (Sept. 30) showed the pivotal state back in the Bush column by 3 percentage points, almost the poll's margin of error (the debate took place in Coral Gables).

What Kerry could do, if he really wants to win the election, is stop harping on the economy, which the President cannot control anyway; and stop hammering on our involvement in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had to go; and instead, focus on the one thing for which George W. Bush should be not only impeached, but imprisoned for life: the Patriot Act, which is an aggravated assault on the Bill of Rights.

Problem is, John Kerry voted FOR the Patriot Act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

The only "no" vote on dismantling the Bill of Rights and using terrorism as an excuse, came from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), with whom I agree on little else. But the one time he did the right thing, he REALLY did the right thing. Also, Sen. Mary Ellen Landrieu (D-La.), who is not of the body (Star Trek joke), did not vote on the Patriot Act. She might not have wanted to risk retaliation by voting no, but at least she did not join the other 98 tyrants in voting yes. That is at least something.

Another thing Kerry could do is change his stance on abortion to something more mainstream, at the very least being willing to ban late-term abortion. But since he is on the submissive end of a BDSM relationship with the bigots of the N.O.W. Klux Klan, that is not going to happen. Bush is far closer than Kerry to mainstream Americans on the issue of abortion. Single women between 18 and roughly 30 are the only demographic group besides billionaires who support abortion as aggressively as Kerry and Clinton; and they make up less than 5 percent of the voters. They should not get to impose their views on the rest of the American people through a White House puppet as they did in the '90s.

Bush has serious problems. Most honest Americans know that. I, myself, am voting for Michael Peroutka, and my second choice is Michael Badnarik. Not because they share my first name, but because they share my basic belief that the authors of the Constitution had it right.

But not all change is good. Replacing Bush with Kerry, in my opinion, would solve none of Bush's problems, and it would create new problems. For that reason I have to consider Bush the lesser evil.

But, and this is a BIG but, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

MM