Candidate for the Millennium

by Ed Lewis
[email protected]

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

           In looking at the prospects for the next presidency of the US, it seems we are seriously lacking. If there is a good candidate, he or she must be from other that the two major parties. By "good" candidate is meant a person who will get something done in the interest of the majority of the people (as Mr. Ed Akehurst of Inform America rightly pointed out to the writer) "... so long as it is not in opposition to the Constitution, and there is authority under the Constitution for such acts."
           With either of the two major parties in control, politics in Washington will remain as they are, corrupt and in the interests of special, high-dollar contributors, those big businesses that can line politicians pockets with the most money and perks. And, of course, see to it that the Constitution of the United States is ignored, or stomped into oblivion.
           What I would like to see is a candidate that says, for one, it is time we do away with the IRS as an entity and enforce federal government financial support as the Constitution states. The IRS and our government are conducting practices that essentially steals money from the citizens of this nation.
           Therefore, I want to hear: "We must enforce Article I provisions and assure that no American citizen's household income domestically acquired is directly taxed, meaning 'you owe us this much in federal income taxes' when, in fact, no American citizen unless they have effectively volunteered to do so, owes anything directly from their income (discounting the limits on foreign earnings and/or government granted businesses)."
           I want to hear a candidate state: "Do not fill out a W-4 form. It is not required and what it does is place you in the position of paying personal income taxes. Report any employer who forces you to fill it out so the situation may be rectified and your right of not being subjected to personal income tax upheld."
           I also want to hear a candidate state: "You do not have to have a social security number nor do you likely even qualify for one. It is a welfare loan system designed to be used under specific criteria and the very fact you are an American citizen likely disqualifies you - unless you elect under your own free will to volunteer to be a part of the system."
           Unless you have your head buried in the sand and think that legislation removing your rights of privacy doesn't affect you, then you know any form of national ID is nothing more than a means of tracking citizen's whereabouts and activities.
           We need a candidate that states: "Any form of national ID must not be allowed. It is none of the government's business as to where you are, what you buy, who you are with, your conversations with others, and so on, unless you have committed a crime. The presumption of innocence must be the prevailing factor, not the presumption of guilt which is what any sort of surveillance is based on."
           Wouldn't it be nice to hear a candidate state: "We in government are going to go through the Constitution article by article, section by section, clause by clause and assure the Constitution is applied as written and accepted by our forefathers. It is the foundation for our Republic. Unless enforced as written, our nation as established, has been made null and void. I do not want this -- I want this to be the home of the free."
           Wouldn't it also be nice to hear: "All corruption must cease. The best action we can take at this time is to prohibit campaign contributions from huge businesses that currently buy politicians and/or political parties. We must treat the contributions for what they are -- bribes. And, as such, the applicable laws must be applied to any candidate using contributed funds and then voting in favor of legislation favoring big business while in opposition to helping the citizenry of this country."
           How about: "Any politician who has been proved to have lied, committed moral turpitude, or broken civil laws must be immediately removed from office. No lengthy debate, no manipulation of the facts the courts are famous for, no attorney (also famous for distortions of facts). If the proof is there in front of the American public, then the proof is also in front of Congress and impeachment for wrong-doing is required by the Constitution. Facts must be allowed to speak for themselves without distortion or political ramifications to a party or parties taken into account."
           As long as we have a government intent on complete control of the people of this nation, the Second Amendment must not be interfered with. It is our only line of defense.
           So, it would be nice to hear a candidate state this: "Gun control laws have not stopped crime. But guns have decreased crimes in every area of the nation in which concealed weapons have been permitted. Therefore, any congressional faction that pushes for legislation effectively directed to doing away with the Second Amendment has only the intent of taking away liberties of the citizens of this nation. The faction should be removed from office as it is not supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, but is, instead, engaging in a subversive war against the Constitution."
           I think it would be quite worthwhile to have as a candidate a person who will state: "Any member of Congress who proposes any legislation in opposition to the Constitution, whether flagrant or under the guise of some "do-gooder" basis, will be removed from office. The oath of office states that the constitution must be supported by representatives we send to Washington. If pushing legislation against the Constitution, then that person is not supporting the Constitution. Therefore, it is effectively treason and must be treated as such."
           Why not: "Any candidate who is elected to office based on certain promises who is found later to have lied or misrepresented himself and his philosophies should also be removed from office. It is imperative in a representative government that representatives vote in a manner reflecting the views of the majority of their constituencies. That is why they were elected and this must be upheld. To do otherwise means they are failing in their responsibilities as an elected official and must, therefore, be fired and replaced."
           Generally speaking, integrity is situationally specific, meaning that people behave with integrity after the act is based against the odds of getting caught. If little chance of getting caught is perceived, then acts lacking in integrity are more likely to occur. We, the people of this nation, have allowed people we put in Congress to behave as they have by letting them slide when members have been caught. In other words, there is very little fear of retribution, if caught.
           The way to correct this is to establish parameters of behaviors we find acceptable and then force the enforcement of corrective measures. We have the laws concerning misbehaviors of people in Congress. They are the same ones that all of us obey (excepting criminals, of course). The only difference is that Congress constitutionally tries its own while those private citizens who break laws are tried in government established courts.
           If we don't rear our heads and establish control over self-serving people in government, then we might as well resign ourselves to being servants to the government, a state we are nearly at now. Didn't our forefathers fight a war and many die in order to not be subservient?
           To sum this up, what we need is a candidate who is for the Constitution and deep-down until death, truly for the people of this nation and all that it stands for. Without such a candidate and his being elected to office, nothing will change. The next administration and Congress will behave just as they have been with your liberties corroded away until, eventually, none remain.
           And, to tell you the truth, Ladies and Gentlemen, I haven't any desire whatsoever to bow to government unless it is, indeed, "of the people, by the people, and for the people". And, then, of course, I wouldn't have to bow but could, instead, hold my head high with pride.