L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 49, June 30, 1999
Candidate for the Millennium
by Ed Lewis
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
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
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
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
to advance to the next article, or
to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 49, June 30, 1999.