 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Quote13. Do you support repeal of laws compelling acceptance of government-issued money [legal tender laws]?
That question concerns the nature of government. Is government a voluntary association, or is government an involuntary association. I can think of no better way to reverse the trend toward involuntary association, what I call crime, and move toward liberty, which is definable as a voluntary association, than by way of nullifying anyone claiming to have a license to enforce one specific monetary product, which is my way of answering your question affirmatively. I don't know how you propose to repeal laws that compel acceptance of government-issued money, but I do know how I plan to do so, by issuing competitive monetary products, of much higher quality, and much lower cost compared to the current legal crime products issued by The Federal Reserve System of Extortion conspirators.
Quote14. Has the US ever fought an enemy who was honorable? Which ones?
That is a loaded question that is derived from a false pretense. The US cannot fight, people fight, and therefore your question must be rephrased so as to actually convey meaning, instead of conveying nonsense. I can rephrase your question so as to have the question makes sense: Has any representative of the people of America ever fought an enemy who was honorable? The answer is demonstrably yes. Beginning with the leaders of The Whiskey Rebellion, whereupon those insurgents, those rebels, those Revolutionary War Veterans, honorably upheld the Spirit of 1776, as they fought against the tyrannical usurper of Liberty, the person named George Washington, as that former Friend of Liberty turned his coat, from blue to red, and crushed, in his own words, "so fatal a spirit". Those enemies of that tyrannical State exemplifies the answer to the question asked, as far as I can interpret such a loaded question, a question that is based upon a false pretense. Too many words? Not enough? You tell me.
Quote15. Were the attacks on the Marine barracks in Beirut, or the USS Cole, terrorist attacks or attacks on a legitimate military target?
As far as my understanding of those acts of violence: the guilty people remain unaccounted for as being people who are guilty of crimes that are committed under the color of law, what I call Legal Crime, and as you may know: all crimes resulting from the original act of criminal aggression, whereby an aggressor commits criminal aggression upon innocent people, such as an aggressive war for profit, such as the crimes that were committed by the Nazi legal criminals, the same crimes that those criminals were tried for, and killed for perpetrating, once they were found guilty, all subsequent crimes are accountable to the first crime, and therefore deaths resulting from those original criminal acts are attributable to the original perpetrators. That is not to say that anyone else is not also guilty of criminal aggression, each case must be judged on its own merit. Why not, while you are at it, question the legitimacy of the incident involving the U.S. Navy ship Liberty, as it was willfully attacked by criminals running the Israeli military, a case if ever there was one, whereby the worst criminals are uncovered during the discovery process, as dishonorable enemies sneak attack honorable military soldiers, and then our own hired employees running our own government help our dishonorable enemies cover up those specific crimes, in that specific case? How do you accurately identify friends of Liberty from our foes? Whose side are you on, I'd like to know the truth, too. Time left?
Quote16. What is the maximum amount – not percentage – that anyone should have to pay in taxes?
A tricky question? No one, ever, should pay in involuntary tax, doing so transfers power from a victim to a criminal, by definition of those precise words, any Tom Foolery with words, euphemisms, and politically correct verbiage, serves the criminals, helping them cover up their perpetuating crimes. You are asking that question to no fool here, Mr.: Americans are inventive, adaptive, disobedient people. Give them no option and they will invent one, we will find a way around these dictates, these orders, these involuntary associations, these taxes handed down from dictators, oppressors, tyrants, and legal criminals. No tax ordered, or else, can be paid by friends of Liberty, doing so lends psychological support, and material support to our enemies. Is that the answer you are looking for, or is that the answer that must be censored? You tell me. How much time is left?
17. Do you support abolition of the income tax?
Who needs a piece of paper to do the right thing? Who needs permission? I can ask the honest productive people of America to please consider the rightness of refusing to pay "protection money" to legal criminals, please, please, please, return to some semblance of common sense, do not feed the legal criminals among us, they grow more powerful, and you, honest productive Americans, grow weaker, penny by blood soaked penny. Who has grown so stupid as to be led to believe that a piece of paper authorizes anyone, ever, to willfully injure any innocent person? Where is your common sense. Where is your head, get your head out of that place where the sun does not shine, sooner, before it is too late. Please. How much time is left? Is that condensed into a small enough sound bite for your pleasure?
Quote18. Why is discrimination prohibited, but is the basis for a progressive tax?
Why do people hire known liars to run their government? Find those people, account for them, let them know they are accessories to whatever crimes the people they hire commit, and perhaps there will be specific discrimination permitted, rather than prohibited, whereby criminals are no longer rewarded for abusing the power of government, and to get to that point sooner, it may be a very good idea to stop sending your hard earned surplus wealth to those very criminals, the ones with badges, the ones committing crimes under the color of law. Is it time? Is it past time?
19. Is simulated drowning, or, "waterboarding" torture? If not, define the word torture.
Who has determined that torturers get to define what is not torture, while they torture? Is it more likely that the victims will honestly account for the full measure of what is, or is not torture? What ever happened to common sense? Of course the people using the power of law to torture, and to commit mass murder, conducting wars of aggression for their exclusive profit, at the expense of all the victims, will not say that they are torturing, and mass murdering, who would pay them once that cat was out of that bag? You? Confess please, will you keep sending them your hard earned power once you discover the truth? You tell me. I'm not holding my breath. I can't wait. I'm running for President of The United States, even during this phase in American History when lies are demanded, and torture is rewarded, and mass murder is the rule, not the exception in what was once our government.
20. Do you support transferring federal lands to the states in which they are located?
My understanding of moral law applied to a Democratic Federated Republican form of government is such that the Republic owns no land, all land is own by The People, and if The People in one State allows their elected representatives to "own" the land, that is what they do, in that State, whose name is on the piece of paper that claims ownership of which land? Each case must be judged according to the specifics of each case. Which case are you referring to, and whose name is on the title in that case, and who is contesting title, and can the decision making process involve a working Trial by Jury if necessary? Do you understand how Trial by Jury works, when it works? I do. Each individual, each sovereign individual has as much, or more, power than elected officials, since each potential Juror has the power to nullify any law. If someone claims that their land has been stolen, there is then a defendant charged with theft. Who decides guilt or innocence in any case whatsoever? You tell me. I know how Liberty can work. What we have working now, for the most part, is legal crime, so long as liars, torturers, and mass murderers are rewarded by their victims, so long will this persist. Common Sense please.
Quote21. Hawaii has a large secessionist movement. Do you support Hawaii's right to self-determination?
A working Democratic Federated Republic is a voluntary agreement. Would it be a good idea, or a bad idea, to find out why the people in Hawaii are moving toward disagreement? Do they no longer agree that it is a good idea to conduct aggressive wars for profit, or just while the profits are going to so few people? I'd ask. Someone might actually tell the truth. That is a sound bite.
22. Do you support and would you continue the War On Drugs?
No. I support a war on liars who fabricate falsehood. Find them and punish them: stop rewarding them. They may then do good things, who knows? It is a fabrication of lies to advertize a war on drugs, there is no such thing possible. Drugs have absolutely no capacity to fight, so who is targeted during this war on drugs? What is next: a war on tooth fairies? How much power can transfer from the honest productive American people to the legal criminals if those legal criminals begin conducting their war on tooth fairies? Follow the money to the source, then see if there is any more power left to fight tooth fairies. Why do the legal criminals get rewarded more for telling more outrageous lies? The war on drugs is a war for drugs, as the exemplary case in Afghanistan. Who is paying what to whom in the opium trade from Afghanistan, follow that money trail, like the case precedent: Iran Contra. Wake up America, it is almost too late. Out of time?
23.(a.) Can you explain the difference between a war, conflict, police action, and kinetic military action?
(b.) Are there other types of military actions other than these?
I can describe each case based upon each case. If a person willfully plans to injure innocent people, they define crime by doing so, even if they call what they are doing by some other name such as spreading democracy. Organized warfare, at the national level, is not a random occurrence, if it is defensive, obviously there must be an aggressor, if there is an aggressor, who planned the aggression? Find that person, or that group, and what do you have at that point? Do you then have a mass murderer, a serial killer? How can you claim otherwise? I don't claim otherwise. A person guilty of willfully injuring one innocent person is guilty of that crime. A person guilty of willfully injuring millions of innocent people is measurably that much more destructive, that much more criminal, why spend a penny defending against the nickle and dime criminals, housing them, feeding them, rewarding them, when criminals who torture and murder millions of innocent people make you pay them every cent you make or else. Or else, you have to invent an alternative. Medium sound bite?
24. Do you support government control of schooling?
What do you mean when you banter around that term? A national level government, one that is based upon the Democratic Federated Republican notion, a notion of competitiveness, is a government that has no business whatsoever in education. A national level President, within a Democratic Federated Republican form of government, just like anyone else, has an opinion, what does that matter? Legal Fiction operators, at the State level, can offer whatever they want in the way of education, it seems to me, and if one State offers much better education, at a lower price, compared to the next State, I most certainly will support anyone choosing to vote with their feet to the better place. That is how a Democratic Federated Republican form of government is supposed to work. If one State enforces a "Love it, and you can't leave it" rule. What does that constitute? In my opinion that would constitute a crime upon whoever was forced to love their "education". I can't see such a thing happening, but if it did happen, on my watch, and if I had the power, I'd, at least, help those who are forced to love their chains, to invent a better option. I'd ask. If the answer was, help me leave, I'd ask one of the other employees in one of the other States, if they could help provide sanctuary. That may appear to dodge the question of education, but again: education is not a Federal issue. False propaganda, behavioral modification, response conditioning, and forced indoctrination is on every tyrants to do list, so please use accurate labels if you want accurate answers. Next?
Quote25. In your opinion, who was the worst president, and why?
The answer is personal, specific to me. I was witness to the massacre in Waco Texas. I saw it on Television while it was perpetrated. I tried to join an armed march on Washington, something that was started by Linda Thomson. I still have the original VCR tapes taken inside the church where those little children were still breathing. So, for me, the worst was that, expletive, Clinton, the same perpetrator behind the genocidal economic aggressive war for profit against Iraq, the so called sanctions. That happened on my watch, it is abhorrent in the extreme. It is evil, horrible, terrifying, and to be avoided, those crimes are soon to be aimed at home, please don't allow it. Stop feeding the legal criminals, before it is too late. Please.
Quote26. In your opinion, who was the best president, and why?
None. I can answer the question if the question was phrased as: Who was the least evil president, and why? The least evil president, as far as I know, and my knowledge is admittedly severely limited, is William Henry Harrison, those who govern least govern best. To any of my critics on this point, save your hero worship for someone more gullible. I'm not buying into that lie. You had better wise up, and guard your liberty before it is too late.
27. In your opinion, what was the worst decision by the Supreme Court?
I have no answer on that question. I can say that a Democratic Federated Republic has no need of a supreme court, in my opinion, what can a Supreme Court do that each Separate and Sovereign State cannot do within the power of nullification, or even more importantly, what can a Supreme Court do that each separate and sovereign individual juror can't do on any question of law whatsoever since each juror in a working Trial by Jury system also hold the power of nullification in each and every case?
28. Do you support government control of the internet?
Which government? You banter that word around as if all governments were created equal, one indistinguishable from the other, which is demonstrably not true. Governments are competitive, some are much better than others, some are much more costly than others, and in the case of a Democratic Federated Republic the Federal level of control would be no different than your own control, or my own control, I can turn it on, and I can turn it off at will, at my personal connection. If a State turns access to the internet off to all the people in that state, my suggestion is the same one, vote with your feet, make the experiment work the way it is intended to work.
Quote29. Do you support turning airline security over to the airlines?
Who took security out of the hands of the people? It was not me. Do you understand the meaning of Liberty? You decide to travel by way of airplane, who is responsible for your security? Not me. As President my duty is to stop legal crime, that is what I will do, and it is false, it is fraud, it is crime, for one person to assume, involuntarily, control over security of another person. If anyone is operating a Federal protection racket, it would then me my duty to stop that ongoing crime. I would have the power to pull that plug, or I wouldn't be much of a President. Dare to find out? Go ahead, waste your vote on me, instead of wasting it on your version of security. Make my day, punk. How is that for a sound bite?
Quote30. How can anyone be said to be free when the government has a prior claim on all he earns?\
Again with the universal use of the term government, as if there was only one. There are more than one. One is better than the other. One that is more along the lines of a voluntary association is much better than a criminal one. If the only one is a criminal one, and no one invents an alternative, obey. Obey. You do that, go ahead, do that, see what you get. I'm not on that boat. You have been warned. Get off that boat. Stop feeding the legal criminals, they are eating you while they terrorize you, torture you, and destroy all that makes you unique, and valuable, and honest, and good, and moral, and lovable, and productive, and sane, and worth reproducing with even better versions of you.
31. Is it possible to maintain good government when politicians lie regularly?
You get what you pay for, and that isn't news. Two sentence sound bite, I'm getting good.
Quote32. Will you pledge to resign from office if it can be shown that you lied to the people?
If you hire a liar, on purpose, what good is a pledge? Waste your vote on an honest person, see what happens.
Quote33. If you are elected, will you pledge to release all secret information regarding government crimes or unexecuted planned crimes against citizens, such as MK ULTRA, Tuskegee Experiments, Operation Northwoods, Guatemalan Syphilis Experiments, CDC Measles Experiment, etc.?
I'm not in the business of pledges, promises, oaths, etc., never was, and it's getting late for me to start, but my intention is to declare war on the liars who produce falsehood in abundance, and how can that war be waged? I plan on running a reality Television show during my Presidency. You, and everyone else, are invited in on everything, except bathroom visits, and I won't be televising sex with my wife, but when I go get the legal criminals, please tune in. It will be messy. I think I may actually kick ass, literally, and if my target cries and brings me to court, I'll let the jury decide my punishment for kicking ass, and taking names. You find out. You waste your vote on an average Joe. You do the impossible. Do it. Make my, expletive, day. I won't be self censoring. Tune in, and be warned, strong language, and there may be violence, but no sex, please, that is private.
Quote34. When a person's moral beliefs are in conflict with a legislative edict, what should he do?
When in doubt, power out. That is an old motocross term, I'm borrowing from my brother Jack. Morality is the power behind human survival, it is the genetic code, perhaps, that drives such things as reproduction, production, a desire for facts, an abhorrence for seemingly senseless destruction. What drives the opposite, what power is in play when legislative edict goes against moral consciousness? Morality is not merely belief, to me, so I have to ask, why do you downgrade an obvious life sustaining imperative from what it is to a "belief", as if a person having moral consciousness can simply choose to turn it off?
35. Do you favor compelling citizens to violate their conscience?
Why not ask if I favor involuntary associations, or blind obedience? What would be the point behind favoring citizens to violate their conscience? Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing as responsibility. If I compel someone else to do anything against their will, by way of fraud, or by way of threats of violence, or by way of a violent act upon someone, their act is then my act, I am then responsible for my act, which in term causes their act, and to what end would I choose to confuse accountability in that way? This is not a new question. Raising children exposes this very question to the parents. How can any being in command of the power of will learn the difference between right and wrong if the power to decide is removed? If the power to decide is removed, and that power is commanded externally, instead of internally, when will the actor ever know when their decision is right or wrong, wile that power has been removed? With children there are times when the decision is too risky for the child, and the parent has to take control, and pull the child away from the imminent danger, failing to do so, allowing that wrong decision to be made, ends the life of the child, short of that, how can a child learn to use his, or her, individual power of will, without using it? An honest productive person, or a non-criminal, is an autonomous, sovereign being, not a child, and who claims to be in any position to know better, as to what is right or wrong, for anyone else? Not me. If, on the other hand, a person decides to injure an innocent person, and is well along during the commission of said crime, then who, if not me, or you, will decide to help the targeted victim avoid the impending, or even the ongoing, injury, if it is within our power to do so, at least? So, the answer to the question must be done in such a way as to accurately differentiate, discriminate, and judge, the difference between any act that involves a willful plan, and a willful act, targeting an innocent person, and anything else, and anything else, is none of my damn business, as President, or as average Joe. That is well over a sound bite, I'd have to speak quickly, or be cut off.
Quote36. How does compelling someone to violate his conscience differ when we do it, from when the Communists, Nazis or Fascists did it?
I don't do it. Please leave me out of that set of people who do it. I'm not in that club. I don't belong in "we" as you have volunteered me into, against my will. Please don't do that again. If you catch me doing that, let me know, I'll be more than happy to admit my error, and I can then work to avoid repeating that error. You may also, please, consider defining what you mean by "conscience", as in moral conscience, since a criminal conscience may be an entirely opposite concept, whereby the criminal mind has decided, consciously, that everyone else is asking to be injured, and it is the duty of that person, according to such as "conscience" to go ahead and provide that fabricated "service", even while the targeted victims are pleading for mercy. Who has the power to alert the victims in time to help them avoid such exercises of "conscience" so defined? The war on falsehood will be digging deep.
Quote37. If the federal debt ceiling can be raised, what is it for?
A few people, if that is the right term, have convinced a great majority of honest productive Americans that the act of borrowing, by those few, amounts to debt owed, with interest, to be paid by the honest productive people, and paid to those few things, that may or may not be people. Those things have a gift, probably not a God given gift either, and that gift is illustrated by this amazing power, this power that causes all those honest productive people to actually believe that they owe those few for those few having borrowed from all those honest productive people. That is a very powerful gift. The victims of that lie, amazingly enough, actually send their offspring to work for those few legal criminals, to torture, and to mass murder, and to be torture, and to be mass murdered, and some of the victims actually beg for more punishment. Can you explain to me how that happens, and stop speaking in the terms used by the legal criminals, as if their terms are acceptable? Their terms are not acceptable, they are false, they are destructive, misleading, wrong, evil, torturous, and murderous, massively murderous. Please stop using their terms. Please stop using their currency. Please.
Quote38. Does the Constitution give the President exclusive power over foreign policy? (No)
How can I trust you now. You cheat. You are giving me the answer you want to hear. How about the truth instead? The Constitution enables the interpreter of it to do as he, or she pleases, and that is the main reason why the Founding Fathers objected to The Constitution. You may want to learn the lessons provided to you by the people who warned you about that "feature", that constructive interpretation capacity written into that enabling document, such as Patrick Henry. You were warned, and you still don't listen.
Quote39. Do you consider people such as Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning and Mark Felt, heroes or traitors?
There are very few hero's on my list. One is my wife. It is a short list. Whistle blowers are doing a great service to anyone who demands advance warning, Patrick Henry blew the whistle on the criminals and their usurpation, did you listen to Patrick Henry? The legal criminals cannot allow accurate data to flow to their ready victims, even if most of them love their chains, now, the legal criminals will lose their power once their victims regain their power of numbers, and they know it. The legal criminals censor, that is what they do, and they censor the most damaging information first, they are not stupid. I can borrow from one of the Whistle Blowers, and professional, as he said: "If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true" - John Pilger. If the whistle blower is being tortured, it's probably really true.
Quote40. If elected, would you pledge to return to the practice of reporting to congress the state of the union by letter instead of speech?
I don't pledge, what good is a pledge. I'm not in possession of perfect knowledge. I can plan on doing things, and I can adapt along the way, invent ways to meet any obstacle along the path. My plan is to report live, keep the video feed on all the time, with few exceptions, if someone want's to know something, tune in. Do you have a better plan. If it is better, you may get my vote, but I already don't trust you, you cheat, and you have an obvious misunderstanding concerning the true purpose and design of The Constitution, which is inexcusable, since the perpetrators confessed their intentions, and there were plenty of people, like Patrick Henry, blowing the whistle.
Quote41. On your second day in office, what agencies and programs do you intend to propose for elimination?
My plan will take care of things my way. I'll do it my way. If you want to know the details, I can explain the details, in detail, and it won't be a sound bite. If you want to waste your vote on an honest person, then just watch and see how it is done. When the honest productive people no longer send their money to the legal criminals, with my Product 1 and Product 2 competitive legal financial instruments, offered, not enforced, just offered, not in any way an involuntary dictate, merely an offering, to anyone who wants a competitive legal money, and I may have to do some hard selling, but it will work, and when it works, the flow of power stops flowing from the honest productive people to the legal criminals, and then when that is well underway, much of those destructive "programs" will wither on the vine. Meanwhile, as stated earlier, my plan is to use each enforcement agency against the other, for the people, to have each hired employee blow the whistle on each other hired employee, taking names, and discovering, and trying, and then sentencing those who have abused defensive government and those who have employed government as a means of perpetrating crimes, such as torture, and mass murder. Those who are less guilty may have a very serious case of moral conscience enter their consciousness as the expletive hits the fan. Just watch, it will be live, a new reality show. Do you dare waste your vote so carefully?
Quote42. What would you do if China, Iran, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya or other countries turned isolationist?
Soft ball questions that are couched in the verbiage of legal crime? Why play such games? The legal criminals are busy building World War III, they are setting things up to cause China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran on one side, and The Dollar Hegemony on the other side, the more destructive that the war can be fueled into being the better for the legal criminals who sit back and watch, safely in their bunkers, and when all that power is spent and the ashes have fallen, and while the bodies are rotting, they plan on ushering in a new world reserve currency that will most likely be produced, and maintained from Asia, no longer being produced and maintained from America, and if we allow that, we may not deserve that, but that is what we get, we the honest productive Americans, if any of us are left standing. If, as your soft ball, and irrelevant question, does happen, I can certainly be wrong, then as President I will help, with my Product 1, and Product 2, offering, help, help, help, the honest American people by helping them, by helping them keep their own earnings, so they can then use their own power to do what they do best, and then they will, we will, be in a powerful position to out produce any other group of people, and if any other group of people decide not to trade with us, then, it will be their loss, not ours.
Quote43. Should the US work to reduce its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? If not, what countries should possess such weapons?
You are speaking of specific things that exemplify legal crime. Criminals devise, invent, produce, and employ weapons of mass destruction. How can anyone be so far out of touch with reality to be led to believe otherwise? If we are defensive, and we are invaded, does it make any sense in the universe, to employ a weapon that kills everyone? What have you been lead to believe, and what gives you the authority to question me, as you parrot such absurd nonsense? Anyone having anything to do with the invention, production, and use of weapons of mass destruction, as far as I am concerned, are guilty of the worst possible crimes against humanity, as such willful employment of human power actually threatens human extinction, what worse crime can be imagined by anyone, please raise your hand? To me, not to Joe McCarthy, not a witch hunt, not a punishment routine, anyone caught in that act, at least, at the very least, should have their license revoked, their pay stopped, and then, at least, set them out to make an honest living, please. Stop financing the end of human life, is there a more important warning offered by anyone? I'm not the only one on this boat. Some of us have not yet lost our sanity.
Quote45. Explain the difference between law and legislation.
Law is an ongoing, adaptive, continuously improving, and a competitive, agreement between honest productive people, whereby honest productive people agree to avoid resort to the use of deceit, and honest productive people agree to avoid resorting to the use of threats of violence, and honest productive people agree to avoid the use of acts of violence, against the innocent, for profit, and if you can find, anywhere, a more concise, less ambiguous, higher quality, and lower cost definition of law, please do. Legislation is elaboration, a far as I am concerned, and so long as Trial by Jury works, as designed by agreement among honest productive people, no legislation has any power, so long as any one individual juror disagrees with any specific elaboration of law, or legislation.
Quote46. Should people be free to ingest substances without the approval of government? If not, why is government approval needed and how does it change the act?
People do ingest substances without approval. What does it matter to you, as to what I think they should, or should not do, and are you again using the term government as if there is only one, and as if there are not two, or three, or four, and many governments, where some are much better, and less costly, and some are much worse, and much more costly? Your question is again couched in the verbiage of legal crime, and if I can translate the question into a question that coveys meaning I offer: Will you plan on, and then execute the plan, to injure innocent people who decide to ingest substances, or, will I punish people I catch ingesting substances. The answer to the meaningful question is no, and none of my business, as a sovereign person, and none of my business as The President of a working Democratic Federated Republican experimental form of government. Suppose, however, that I do catch the Vice, and I do mean Vice, President taking a hit on the bong before a meeting? I'll look into the camera and say: "Now that is a vice president." If the dude, or woman, can't handle the job, for any reason, it may be a good time to find a more competitive employee, what do you think?
Quote47. How small does a business have to be before it can't expect a government bailout in bad economic times?
That is covered very well in my Product 1, and Product 2, offering. Any person earns credit, as far as I am concerned, and therefore any person can borrow from their own good faith and credit, and who is to claim otherwise? Who is made to pay for the mistakes made by anyone, ever, and how does that process occur in any level, in a family, in a small business, a large business, a town, a city, a county, a State, a Nation, or a Federation, or a world? When power flows to those who use power to produce more power best, what do you think happens? When power flows to those who destroy things "best" what do you think happens. I don't chain myself down within the boundaries of the legal crime industry, I don't censor my thinking that does not conform to fashionable thought, I do not restrict my life down to a narrow line that has be dictated by fashion, or legislation, and therefore I can see things clearly, not muddled, not distorted, not confused, not filtered, and not according to your dogma. When power is allowed to flow, voluntarily, from those who create power, it tends to flow to those who use power best, to increase the quality of life, and to lower the cost of life, and my job will be to remove those criminal connections that hinder that natural flow of power. I can do that with my Product 1, and Product 2 plan. You cannot. You fail to see what I see, and you sound to me like a typical Gold Bug. I've read your work, and I've heard the tune you play. It is a false tune. You can play it. Have no fear from me. Play on. Be my guest.
Quote48. Would you support the abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and leave the Indians alone?
That is not that simple. The Indian Problem was supposed to be solved with the all too familiar Final Solution, according to past executors of The Constitution, as they interpreted it. Now the natives of this land are regaining power, and in each State, in this involuntary Union, the original owners of this land are gaining competitive power. What will the governors of each State do, in the face of such competition? What do State governors usually do when faced with internal competition? What is the moral thing to do? It is not a matter of leaving "them" alone. Native Americans can legitimately question the concept of land ownership, and you, or anyone, can say otherwise. Power will meet power. This, perhaps, will challenge, as much as anything, the validity of a Federated Democratic Republic, as that form of government is designed to allow competitive solutions to problems. The governors of one State may have a much better method of association with Native Americans compared to another State. Better for whom, at the expense of whom? As far as I know the Native American people, generally, do not volunteer to be citizens of the legal fictions created by the invaders, yet, they accept bribes, or cash, or reparations, or payoffs, or flows of surplus wealth denominated in dollars. Is that healthy? Is that a Federal level problem? Will the Federal level programs, or the Federal level legal organizations, or bureau, wither on the vine when the honest productive American citizens, tax payers, stop sending money to the legal criminals? My answer is yes, those bureaus will cease to exist, who will pay for them, who demands them, not I, do you? Will any honest productive person choose to send money to someone who then spends that money paying Native Americans for crimes committed long ago, or for any reason whatsoever? This is a serous problem, because it is a long, long, long, ongoing fraud. State governors may invent, or reinvent, treaties, internal treaties, and perhaps, I don't know, Native Americans can accept mutually beneficial agreements, or they can also vote with their feet, from one State, to a State where the governors don't willfully plan on injuring Native Americans, and then follow through with those plans. Each State can serve as an example of how best to associate with the Native American population. If anyone plans on, and then follows through with the plan, to injure innocent people, who allows it? Not me, not within my power. Why would I do so, in the long run such a careless choice threatens me.
Quote49. Would you seek the endorsement of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and perhaps have ads featuring this person or campaigning with him?
When Product 1, and Product 2 begin to cut off the flow of power from the honest productive people to the legal criminals, as planned, that office will no longer have power flowing to it. Will that employee continue working without pay? I do not think so. He may. I do not support legal crime, I do not associate with legal criminals, if I am elected as President I will have to get my hands dirty, I know it, it will be an abhorrent, disgusting, revolting job, moving so close to so many horrible examples of life, not really human, not in my opinion, these people are guilty of torture and mass murder, they are not human, they profit from the torture and mass murder of innocent children, innocent people, and they perpetuate the misery, on purpose, for profit, or just for fun. I don't know, and I don't want to know. My plan works so as to limit all association with the legal criminals, to cut the link, to sever the connection. In order to accomplish the goal I will have to get right in there and start pointing out each criminal, on T.V., live, show the world who they are, ask each of them why they are doing what they are doing, follow them as they try to hide, and look at it happening in your own mind. The halls of congress will be vacant before long. Who will be left to face the music? The ones who can't answer honest questions with honest answers without confessing guilt will run and hide. Ron Paul won't be there; if I win, he retires. I may find Rand Paul. We can chat. I may find Dennis Kucinich. Who else? Campaigning with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service? I'm not on that bus.
Quote50. Given the choice of two evils, should a person abstain from voting or vote for the lesser evil?
Are you experiencing a fit of guilt, and you wish for company? I do not vote because voting, to me, lends only psychological support to the legal criminals, voting is rigged, and I know it. You may think that choosing to not support the legal criminals is evil, and that may work in your mind, for whatever reason you invent. People who vote for liars are people who hire liars, and liars with that much power do what liars with that much power do, they torture, and they mass murder, so you can massage your guilt with your question, but I'm not buying into that lie. Anyone who add material (economic) or psychological (political) support to torturers and mass murderers are by that exact measure guilty of that exact thing. If knowing that causes you to invent fellows who share you misery, that is your choice, not mine.