SOME OF KENNETH STREMSKY'S COMMENTS TO THE GREEN PAPERS I am running for President of the United States of America in 2004 as a Republican. This page has some of the comments I have e-mailed to The Green Papers which has the website http://www.thegreenpapers.com. The Green Papers is one of the best sites I have ever visited. It has a lot of information about politics. I highly recommend that people check it out before they vote. People may read Richard E. Berg-Andersson's feedback on my Vox Populi's on The Green Papers. He says many great things. On January 25, 2003, I sent the following e-mail. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for going after me for my comments on non voters. I added the following about non voters today to http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresidentusa/militaryissuestext.txt and http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresidentusa/lockeone.txt "On January 25, 2003, I wrote a constitutional amendment would be required to deny people who are able to vote and usually do not vote their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I will not deny people their rights without a constitutional amendment. I think hell is more likely to freeze over than this amendment is to be passed. I think Congress might create a Selective Service for Voters." Sincerely, Ken I e-mailed the following on December 13, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I liked your December 12 commentary very much. I am very glad you are a historian. I hope more people will support State Rights in the future. I think the Federal Government is far more powerful than the United States Constitution allows it to be. I hope fewer people will be racists in the future. Hopefully, we will have lower taxes and better job education programs in the future. Cooperative education is something that should take place in many junior high schools and high schools. Cooperative education has helped many Northeastern University graduates be successful. Hopefully, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will have a division similar to Habitat for Humanity that will help people own their own apartments and homes via sweat equity. Hopefully, our country will be more interested in getting people off harmful substances than putting them in jail. The Federal Government should spend a lot more money on drug treatment programs. Our country should increase the funding of the Small Business Administration significantly and have it help many small businesses grow in inner city areas, rural areas, and other parts of our country via long term low interest loans and mentoring. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident __________________________________________________ I e-mailed the following on December 4, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I hope you will post the following as well. I am very glad that Henri-Paul Bolineau asked the question about the Federal Government using extortion to reduce blood alcohol limits. I enjoyed your answer to his question. A friend of mine was murdered by a drunk driver in 1980. I hope State Legislatures will voluntarilly reduce their blood alcohol limits and increase their drunk driving penalties. I do not believe the Federal Government should use extortion to bring this about. Threatening to withhold Federal funds if a law is not passed or a regulation not adopted is a form of extortion. I also think it does infringe on Amendment Ten. Because of Amendment Ten, the Federal Government may not force a State to do something the Constitution itself does not say a state must do. Because of Amendment Ten, a State may not be kept from doing something the Constitution itself does not prohibit. I do not believe Amendment Ten keeps the Federal Government from doing things not prohibited by the Constitution. I should have been more clear when I discussed the supremacy clause in Article Six. Congress does not have the power to force a State to adopt a one strike your out law dealing with a violent crime. Because federal law supersedes state law, if a person is arrested for a violent crime by State police federal prosecutors may have the person tried in a federal court instead of a state court if Congress adopted a one strike your out law. If the FBI arrested someone for a violent crime and State law in the State the crime was committed is tougher, the person could be tried in a State court if federal prosecutors want this to be the case. I do not believe Amendment Ten does enough to protect State rights. I believe the balance of power between States and the Federal Government has shifted too much in the favor of the Federal Government since State Legislatures stopped choosing Senators. I am glad voters are allowed to choose Senators. I am not happy that the balance of power has shifted so much in favor of the Federal Government. I believe the following amendments to the United States Constitution will shift more power to the State Legislatures and decrease the probability that the Federal Government will use extortion. I also believe the amendments will decrease the probability that the Federal Government will pass unfunded mandates that States and Localities have to act on. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says when at least 70 percent of the State Legislatures of the United States of America vote for the repeal of treaties, laws, and regulations, they should be repealed. When at least 70 percent of the United States Senate votes to overturn a repeal, the repeal shall be overturned. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says that when at least 80 percent of the State Legislatures of the United States of America vote for the removal of the President of the United States of America, the President of the United States of America shall be removed from office two weeks later. The decision shall be overturned when at least 70 percent of the United States Senate votes to repeal the decision. The United States Senate should have to vote on overturning the decision within two weeks after the State Legislatures of the United States of America have voted for the removal of the President of the United States of America. Giving State Legislatures the power to repeal treaties, laws, and regulations will shift the balance of power between the State Legislatures and the Federal Government more to the State Legislatures. Unfunded federal mandates may be passed less often by Congress and/or executive branch departments. Trade agreements the State Legislatures do not like may often be repealed. People who have a problem with this amendment should remember that United States Senators used to be picked by State Legislatures and not by the voters. I am glad that Senators are picked by voters. Amendment Seventeen passed by Congress on May 13, 1912 and ratified on April 8, 1913 allows voters to elect United States Senators. Giving State Legislatures the power to remove a President of the United States of America from office may encourage future Presidents of the United States of America to behave better in office than some of our past Presidents of the United States of America have behaved. Allowing State Legislatures to repeal treaties, laws, and regulations may decrease the probability that the Federal Government will infringe on the civil liberties of our citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Federal Government has infringed on the Bill of Rights while it has waged the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. The Federal Government has infringed on Amendment Four, Amendment Five, and Amendment Eight of the United States Constitution while waging the War on Drugs. The Federal Government has infringed on Amendment Six of the United States Constitution during the War on Terrorism. Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law which infringes on political speech guaranteed by Amendment One of the United States Constitution. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident kstremskyforpresident@yahoo.com I wrote the following on December 3, 2002. I did not e-mail it. I told Richard E. Berg-Andersson that I screwed up big time when I discussed the Supremacy clause of the Constitution. It is in Article Six of the Constitution and not Article Five of the Constitution. I do not know how I missed the roman numeral one after the roman numeral five. The Supremacy clause states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding." I e-mailed the following on December 2, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: You can post these questions with the other questions. You could post this first. What do you think Article Five of the Constitutition means when it says "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" means? Why do you think Amendment Ten nullifies the fact that Article Five says that federal laws are the supreme law of the land? Amendment Ten does not say that state laws are supreme to federal laws. Amendment 10 says that states may not be kept from doing things the Constitution does not ban. If Congress passes a law in the future allowing homosexual marriage? Do you think a state has the power to ban homosexuals from marrying in their state? Do you think a state legislature can ignore Amendment Eight of the Constitution and give a person the death penalty for jay walking? Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following on December 2, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Great response to my latest response. If you think federal law does not supersede state law, do you think a state has the power to ban freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion if its state constitution in the future allows it to ban freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Do you think a state has the power to ban women from voting if its state constitution in the future allows this? Do you think a state has the power to say that people who belong to a particular religion may not run for elective office if its state constitution in the future allows this? Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following on December 1, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for posting my response and responding to it. I am glad I have acted as a foil for you. I hope you will consider posting the following and commenting on it. I hope you will comment in the future on why you think a National Police Force is a bad idea. I see it mainly as a protection agency for airports, nuclear power plants, water supplies, dams, subways, and sports stadiums. They would also help with the border patrol and checking of cargo from ships, planes, and trains. Since the Iranian hostage crisis, the national security threat I have been most worried about is coordinated biological attacks with different biological agents on subways, airports, and sports stadiums. The National Police Force would be well trained to deal with the aftermath of such attacks. I believe the Preamble of the Constitution deals with Congress and not the President of the United States of America. It says what I believe the priorities of Congress should be. We have the Social Security Administration and Medicare to promote "domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare." The Social Security Administration and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. Article One, Section Eight does mention common Defense and general Welfare. What they mean is not mentioned. We do interpret Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution differently. Enforcement of laws is a police power and your arguments for why you think Congress does not have the constitutional ability to create a National Police does not make any sense to me. What is the purpose in having laws if they can not be enforced? Congress does have the power to create a National Police Force. Congress does not have the power to eliminate state and local police forces. Article Five of the Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding." Once the Constitution was adopted, federal law superseded existing state laws and customs. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following on November 29, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I hope you will print the following response to your response. Thanks for your great response. I think having the CIA part of the Department of State is a great idea. I think moving the FBI's Counterterrorism unit from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security makes a lot of sense for the reasons you mention. I do not believe that Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution keeps a National Police Force from being created. I do think Amendment Ten keeps state police forces and local police forces from being eliminated. The preamble of the United States Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The National Police Force would help the Department of Homeland Security "establish Justice, insure domstic tranquility, and provide for the common defense." The National Police Force would make it easier for the President of the United States of America to enforce the federal laws of our country passed by Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not rule unconstitutional. One of the executive powers that the President of the United States of America has is the power of enforcement of the country's federal laws. The President of the United States of America gets to decide which federal laws are enforced. The President of the United States of America does not have to wage War when Congress declares War. The President of the United States of America does not have the power to enforce State Laws and Local laws because of Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution. The National Police Force would not have the power to enforce State Laws and Local Laws because of Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution. The National Police Force would only be able to enforce federal laws. Many States and localities have health departments. Many States have their own regulatory agencies. Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution allows States and Localities to have their own police forces, health departments, and regulatory agencies because the Constitution does not prohibit them from having them. The argument that you use against the National Police Force could be used for eliminating the Food and Drug Administration, the SEC, the FCC, and many other government agencies because the States are not prohibited from having versions of them by the United States Constitution. I believe Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution allows Congress to create a National Police Force and allowed Congress to create the Food and Drug Administration, the SEC, the FCC, and many other government agencies. I believe Article One, Section Eight says "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" because the people who wrote our Constitution wanted the Federal Government to be able to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and provide for the common defense." Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following on November 27, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you will print the following response to your Commentary. I liked your commentary on the Department of Homeland Security very much. I am very glad you think we should have just one National Security Council and that the Secretary of Homeland Security should be part of the National Security Council. I wan Guard should be part of the Department of > > Homeland Security. I read about the idea for the > > Air Guard in a letter to the editor in the > > September 17 Union Leader newspaper on page A11. > > > > Several National Guard units should become > > Homeland Security Guard units. > > > > Many FBI Agents, CIA agents, NSA agents, and > > INS agents should become Homeland Security Agents. > > > > Sky Marshalls should be part of the Department of > > Homeland Security. > > > > Pilots should be allowed to carry pocket knives > > and possibly handguns. > > > > Several movies which deal with war, spying, and > > terrorism are In The Company of Spies, Deterrence, > > Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Siege, Rules of Engagement, > > > Saving Private Ryan, Midway, and The Longest Day. > > I work for a video rental store chain. > > > > Two books by Tom Clancy that deal with war and > > terrorism are Debt of Honor and Executive Orders. > > I am reading a great book on military strategy > > which is the Second Revised Edition of Strategy > > by B.H. Liddell Hart. Rommel and Patton were > > fans of B.H. Liddell Hart. > > > > May God watch over our country. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Kenneth Stremsky I e-mailed the following on November 21, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for commenting on my second response to you. Thanks for posting Daryle Hendricksen's response to my comments. I hope many of the readers of The Green Papers will e-mail members of Congress and newspapers their views on the issues. I also hope many readers of The Green Papers will consider running for elective office in 2003 and 2004. If citizens do not exercise the power that they have, they may lose the power that they have. Many of the things I have written on my website, I wrote to make people angry. Before many people think seriously about an issue, they have to be made angry. I know this is often true with me. I know I do not have all the answers. I know I am often wrong. I decided to run for elective office because I got tired of the issues not getting discussed as well as they should be. I am hopeful that my campaign for President of the United States of America will get many more Americans interested in the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights. People may e-mail me. I highly value negative feedback. I may post some of the negative feedback I receive on my website. I added a Selective Service for Voters section to page one of my website based on the Selective Service for a possible future draft. I hope the readers of The Green Papers will ask themselves the following questions. Do you think it is appropriate to have a Selective Service for the draft? Do you think it should be legal to have a draft to force people to fight in foreign lands? I do not think it should be legal to force people who have been drafted to fight for our country in foreign lands. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following on November 20, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for printing my response. I hope you will print the following as well. Response I wrote my comments dealing with non voters because of the following. One. Congress did not declare War against Vietnam. Two. Our country forced people to fight for us in a foreign land via the draft. Three. We did not allow our troops to win when we sent them into battle. Four. We called the troops we forced to fight for us baby killers while they were in Vietnam and baby killers when they got back. Five. For many years, our country did not care about the harm that Agent Orange did to many of our soldiers. Six. For many, many years our country did not care about the mental health problems that many of our Vietnam veterans have had. If people do not like the candidates who are on the ballot, they should write in the name of someone they do like or none of the above. Usually I vote for the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, I write in the name of someone I do like. When you do not vote, you say you do not care about our soldiers. When you do not vote, you say you do not care about your liberties and the liberties of others. For several years, I have advocated putting none of the above boxes on ballots and if a none of the above box obtains more than fifty percent of the votes cast for a particular position, another election should be held and the people who received fewer votes than none of the above for the particular position should not be allowed to participate in the special election. It is possible to find out how many people could have been eligible voters on election day. You only have to know a person's age and whether a person has been denied the right to vote because of legal reasons. You can then track people over time to see whether they showed up on general election day or sent in an absentee ballot. I have no problem with people doing what you did in the 1980s when you "walked into the voting booth, closed the curtain, and opened it up again without pulling a single lever for any candidate on the entire ballot! Every office up for election in my Election District that particular First Tuesday after the First Monday in November got at least one less vote than the total votes eventually cast for each office on the ballot... my own "non-vote" that day, thus, counted (because my "non-vote" actually showed up numerically in the final tally of the voting!)" People who do what you did that day are showing that they care about our soldiers and our liberties because they show up on general election day. My problem is with the people who are unwilling to show up on general election day or send in an absentee ballot. A person could send in an absentee ballot with none of the above written in for each office. I think it is productive in our Democracy to say that people who are unwilling to show up on general election day or send in an absentee ballot spit on all the graves of all the soldiers who have died fighting for our liberties and all the graves of the people who died on September 11, 2001. When government knows it can get away with infringing on civil liberties, it is more likely to infringe on civil liberties. When government knows it can get away with corruption, it is more likely to be corrupt. When members of Congress know they can get away with passing a Resolution authorizing the use of force when a Declaration of War should be necessary, Congress is not likely to fulfill all its Article One, Section Eight War making responsibilities. When people do not show up on general election day or send in an absentee ballot, they say they do not care about the previous things. If a person has shown most of the time that the person does not care about the person's civil liberties and the civil liberties of others, I do not think there is anything wrong with the government and society not caring about the person's civil liberties. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following on November 18, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I liked your comments dealing with al-Qa'eda very much. I have never read the Qur'an. Which "Islam-friendly" English translations do you recommend? I hope you will consider printing the following response to your Commentary. Response One of the most important of the Ten Commandments is "You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain." God gave this Commandment to Moses to give to the world because God did not want people to use God's name to justify the evil and violence that humans do. al-Qa'eda members are as evil and misguided as the Christian soldiers who murdered Jews and Muslims during the Crusades because they were Jews and Muslims. al-Qa'eda members, when you say that you are killing in God's name you are taking God's name in vain and giving yourselves a one way ticket to Hell. You will not be enjoying Virgins in paradise. You will be enjoying the Devil's tortures for eternity. I hope Americans who were allowed to vote in the general election in 2002 and did not vote will someday realize that they spit on all the graves of all the soldiers that have died fighting for our liberties and all the graves of the people who died on September 11, 2001. I hope someday you unpatriotic Americans realize that you cause our Republic more harm than all the terrorists in the World. Someday, I hope that people who are able to vote and usually do not vote will be treated as pariahs by government and by society. If you do not like the people who are running for elective office, get off your butts and run for office yourselves. Freedom will not continue to exist in our country if people do not fulfill their citizenship duties and make sacrifices. Rome went from being a great Republic to a deranged Empire under Caligula and Nero. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following letter on October 13, 2002 Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says when at least 70 percent of the state legislatures of the United States of America vote for the repeal of treaties, laws, and regulations, they should be repealed. When at least 70 percent of the United States Senate votes to overturn a repeal, the repeal shall be overturned. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says that when at least 80 percent of the state legislatures of the United States of America vote for the removal of the President of the United States of America, the President of the United States of America shall be removed from office two weeks later. The decision shall be overturned when at least 70 percent of the United States Senate votes to repeal the decision. The United States Senate should have to vote on overturning the decision within two weeks after the state legislatures of the United States of America have voted for the removal of the President of the United States of America. Giving state legislatures the power to repeal treaties, laws, and regulations will shift the balance of power between the State Legislatures and the Federal Government more to the State Legislatures. Unfunded federal mandates may be passed less often by Congress and/or executive branch departments. Trade agreements the state legislatures do not like may often be repealed. People who have a problem with this amendment should remember that United States Senators used to be picked by State Legislatures and not by the voters. I am glad that Senators are picked by voters. Amendment Seventeen passed by Congress on May 13, 1912 and ratified on April 8, 1913 allows voters to elect United States Senators. Giving State Legislatures the power to remove a President of the United States of America from office may encourage future Presidents of the United States of America to behave better in office than some of our past Presidents of the United States of America have behaved. Allowing State Legislatures to repeal treaties, laws, and regulations may decrease the probability that the Federal Government will infringe on the civil liberties of our citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Federal Government has infringed on the Bill of Rights while it has waged the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. The Federal Government has infringed on Amendment Four, Amendment Five, and Amendment Eight of the United States Constitution while waging the War on Drugs. The Federal Government has infringed on Amendment Six of the United States Constitution during the War on Terrorism. Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law which infringes on political speech guaranteed by Amendment One of the United States Constitution. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident kstremskyforpresident@yahoo.com I mailed the following to several newspapers. Letter to the Editor The police may want to ask military snipers and ex military snipers to hunt the Washington, DC sniper. The Washington, DC sniper could be a woman. Many women were snipers for the Soviet Union during World War 2. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident I e-mailed the following letter on October 10, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Please print the following Vox Populi in the future. Vox Populi Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Amendment One of the United States Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The United States Supreme Court should rule the 1998 "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which lengthened copyright terms from 50 years after the author's death to 70 years after" unconstitutional. The quote is from page A1 of the October 10, 2002 Union Leader. Extending copyright terms significantly beyond the time of death of the Author is not constitutional because the United States Constitution says copyrights should only be granted for "limited Times." The United States Supreme Court should make sure that copyright law does not harm freedom of speech and the ability of people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe freedom of speech, education, and the ability of people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is harmed when people are not allowed to quote living authors extensively without the living author's permission when the works are not for sale and the author of the work that is getting quoted receives credit for the work. I believe Congress should change Copyright Law to say that a person may quote extensively the work of a living author without the living author's permission if the work is not for sale and the living author gets credit for the work. I believe Congress should change Copyright law to say that a person may quote extensively the work of a dead author who has been dead for less than 50 years when the work is not for sale and the author gets credit for the work. I believe Congress has the ability to revoke patents and copyrights because Congress has the power to grant patents and copyrights. I believe patent extensions have been granted on many drugs that should not have been granted. The United States Supreme Court should revoke patent extensions that it believes should not have been granted because patents are supposed to be for only "limited Times." Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican Candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 kstremskyforpresident@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident October 4, 2002 Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for mentioning my Killing Free Speech Vox Populi. I enjoyed your comments about campaign fundraising very much in your Garden State Follies continued. Please consider publishing the following after it. You wrote "Lautenberg, at last report, has indicated that he doesn't want to have to spend much-if any-of his own considerable wealth unless he is formally placed on the General Election ballot in Torricelli's place; indeed, he is most likely barred from doing so if Torricelli's name remains on the ballot." Mr. Lautenberg may spend as much of his own money as he wants promoting a write in campaign for himself because of Amendment One of the United States Constitition which allows a candidate for elective office to spend as much of the candidate's own money on the candidate's campaign as the candidate wants. Mr. Lautenberg may ask people to contribute money to a write in campaign. Any money contributed to a write in campaign for Mr. Lautenberg could also be used by him if his name is on the general election ballot. I think New Jersey Senate debates would receive a lot of media coverage. A candidate who is not willing to participate in debates would probably not receive many votes. The Republican Party is being very stupid fighting to keep Mr. Lautenberg's name off the ballot. They are giving the impression that they think Mr. Forrester can not win if Mr. Lautenberg is on the ballot. The harder the Republican Party fights to keep Mr. Lautenberg's name off the ballot the more people who will probably vote for Mr. Lautenberg. Niccolo Machiavelli might have disagreed with me. The following excerpt comes from pages 135 and 136 of The Portable Machiavelli and comes from The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. "A prince, therefore, must be very careful never to let anything slip from his lips which is not full of the five qualities mentioned above: he should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality. And men in general judge more by their eyes than their hands; for everyone can see but few can feel. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few perceive what you are, and those few do not dare to contradict the opinion of the many who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, when there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result. Let a prince therefore act to seize and to maintain the state; his methods will always be judged honorable and will be praised by all; for ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by the outcome of a thing; and in the world there is nothing but ordinary people; and there is no room for the few, while the many have a place to lean on." If the Republican Party is smart it will stop challenging the placement of Mr. Lautenberg's name on the ballot and challenge him to debate Mr. Forrester at least three times on television. Hopefully, one of the debates would have just questions from audience members. Hopefully, one debate would have just the candidates asking each other questions. Hopefully, each debate will last two hours. I do not think the Republican Party in New Jersey wants to be remembered for making it hard for people to vote. In combat, the high ground is often the best ground. In political combat, the high moral ground is often the best ground. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky October 2, 2002 Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for agreeing to post my Vox Populi dealing with the New Jersey United States Senate race. Your Garden State Follies is awesome. I think a lot of New Jersey voters will be ticked off at both the New Jersey Democratic Party and the New Jersey Republican Party for many years because of the mess both parties have created. The Democratic Party should have run several high quality candidates for United States Senate. The Republican Party should not be trying to make it hard for people to vote for a Democrat other than Torricelli. I sent the following to New Hampshire newspapers today. OP/ED: I ran for United States Senate from New Hampshire in the Republican primary in 2002 and I received more than 2000 votes. I think the people who are condemning Senator Bob Smith's supporters for deciding to write in Senator's Bob Smith's name in the November election should be ashamed of themselves. A voter should vote in a primary election and/or a general election for the candidate the voter thinks is best. People who usually do not vote in general elections should be condemned. Voters should not be condemned for voting for the candidates they like best. I have mailed the following letter to newspapers in New Jersey. Letter to the Editor: If the Democratic Party is not able to get a new United States Senate candidate on New Jersey's ballot, the Democratic Party should have a candidate run as a write in candidate. I hope there will be at least three televised United States Senate debates between the new Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate, and other candidates for United States Senate in New Jersey. If the voters of New Jersey do not like any of the candidates who are running for United States Senate, I hope they will write in the name of someone they do like. I hope Congress will pass a law that puts none of the above boxes on ballots for United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and President of the United States of America for primary elections and general elections. If a none of the above box obtains more than 50 percent of the votes cast for a particular position, another election should be held and the people who lost to none of the above should not be allowed to participate in the special election. The special election could take place a month after the election that the none of the above box won. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident October 1, 2002 Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: If the Democratic Party is not able to get a new United States Senate candidate on New Jersey's ballot, the Democratic Party should have a candidate run as a write in candidate. I hope there will be at least three televised United States Senate debates between the new Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate, and other candidates for United States Senate in New Jersey. If the voters of New Jersey do not like any of the candidates who are running for United States Senate, I hope they will write in the name of someone they do like. I hope Congress will pass a law that puts none of the above boxes on ballots for United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and President of the United States of America for primary elections and general elections. If a none of the above box obtains more than 50 percent of the votes cast for a particular position, another election should be held and the people who lost to none of the above should not be allowed to participate in the special election. The special election could take place a month after the election that the none of the above box won. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 September 22, 2002 Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: The United States Constitution in Article One, Section Eight says Congress has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Our founders did not want the President of the United States of America to make War whenever the President of the United States of America felt like it. Our founders realized it would be very dangerous for the President of the United States of America to make War whenever the President of the United States of America felt like it. Requiring a Congressional Declaration of War decreases the probability that a President of the United States of America will make War when it is not necessary to boost popularity ratings of the President of the United States of America, boost the electoral returns of the members of the party the President of the United States of America belongs to, and deflect attention from scandals the President of the United States of America is involved. If Congress wants the United States of America to send more than 1000 land troops into Iraq, Congress should Declare War against Iraq. A Resolution authorizing the usage of force is not acceptable when significant numbers of land troops are involved. Congress should have Declared War against North Korea before significant land troops were sent into Korea. Congress should have Declared War against Vietnam before significant numbers of land troops were sent into Vietnam. The only time the President of the United States of America should be allowed to send more than 1000 land troops into a combat situation is when Congress has Declared War when Congress exists. If Congress ceased to exist for a time because most of the members of Congress had been killed, the President of the United States of America could send more than 1000 land troops into battle without the permission of Congress. The President of the United States of America does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to bomb weapons factories in Iraq. The President of the United States of America does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to assasinate Saddam Hussein and other top people in his government. Only Congress may give the President of the United States of America permission to send significant numbers of land troops into battle when Congress is in existence. A Resolution from the United Nations authorizing the President of the United States of America to send significant numbers of land troops into battle when Congress has not Declared War is meaningless because only Congress may Declare War. I think Congress will probably have to Declare War against Iraq. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 I e-mailed the following letter on September 21, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Great response to my most recent letter. I agree with almost all of your comments. President Washington does support temporary military alliances in his Farewell address. I believe he would have been an advocate of our World War 2 policies and post World War 2 policies. He says "Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." I do not think the Farewell Address is perfect. Terrorists would hate the United States of America if Israel had never existed. Terrorists would hate the United States of America if our country had never harmed anyone. A significant portion of the hatred in the world directed at the United States of America stems from jealousy. I think the National Security Strategy is far from perfect. Congress needs to decide how to punish terrorists and "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kenneth Stremsky I e-mailed the following letter more than a half-hour after the next letter I have posted. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I agree with most of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002. People who read The Discourses by Machiavelli, The Prince by Machiavelli, and The Art of War by Sun Tzu should realize why most of it makes sense. I disagree with the comments on Trade Promotion Authority and some other topics. The United States of America has the right to defend itself by any means necessary including the usage of force first. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky I e-mailed the following letter on September 21, 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: Thanks for posting my Vox Populi that is a response to your September 13 letter and responding to it. When a country shows favoritism when it should not, it has more reason to fear. When a country hates a country more than it should, it has more reason to fear. I agree with you on every thing you said in the following paragraph except for what you said about President Washington. "Fear is the antithesis of Liberty - for, if you fear, you cannot then be free. The essence of Liberty is the difficulty engendered by the need for self-control; the essence of Fear, meanwhile, is the too easy giving into control by others. I'm afraid that, in a world containing both intercontinental missiles able to deliver nuclear weapons and cells of terrorists able to hijack airlines and turn them into weapons of mass destruction, the foreign policy of George Washington's world and time no longer makes much sense!" What President George Washington said in his Farewell Address makes perfect sense. He said our foreign policies should not be dictated by other countries. He said we should not be in the control of others. He thought it was stupid to hate a country a lot more than we should. Saying that Iran is part of the axis of evil increases the probability of attacks on our citizens and country. Treating Israel a lot better than we should when Israel has done wrong has caused many people in the Middle East and other countries to hate the United States of America. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I liked your September 13, 2002 letter dealing with War powers. I wish you had mentioned that Article One, Section Eight says Congress and not the President of the United States of America has the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To Constite Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." The Constitution does not grant the President of the United States of America as much power as you think it does in War time. Our modern War with terrorism began when our Marines were murdered in Lebanon in the early 1980s. Our first war with terrorism began shortly after our country was founded and we called those terrorists pirates. The Art of War Sun Tzu translated by General Samuel B. Griffith says how conventional wars and unconventional wars should be fought. President George Washington's Farewell Address discusses the foreign policies the United States of America should have if it wants its citizens to be safer and wants to fight fewer wars in the future. President George Washington said in his Farewell Address "In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of disputes occur. So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gliding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." President Washington said "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur." I think it is stupid for the United States of America to say that Iran is part of the axis of evil that includes Iraq and North Korea. Decades before the Iranian hostage crisis and support of terrorism against the the United States of America by Iran, President Eisenhower removed Mossadegh from power in the early 1950s and replaced him with the Shah of Iran who was an evil man. Our government supported the Shah of Iran for decades because our country cared more about cheap oil than human rights. Iran has slowly modified some of its politics towards most of the world in the last decade and President Bush did not help the forces in Iran that are trying to make Iran less hostile to the world when he said Iran is part of the axis of evil. Saying Iran is part of the axis of evil is also stupid for military reasons because Iran borders Iraq. During World War 2, the United States of America and the Soviet Union fought Germany. A war with Iraq might have fewer casualities and lead to a shorter presence of U.S. forces in Iraq if Iran and the United States of America forgive each other for the harm they have done each other, establish full diplomatic relations, and sign a trade treaty that boosts the economies of the United States of America and Iran. President George Washington said "It also leads to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld." My mother has lived in Israel for many years and I believe that the policy that the United States of America has had with Israel for many years has harmed both Israel and the United States of America. I believe that the United States of America should have two standards dealing with foreign policy. Good relationships with countries that have fair elections and human rights. Mediocre or little relationships with countries that have fair elections and/or human rights missing. Saudi Arabia and Israel fall into the second category. Israel is treating Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza Strip the way that Jews were treated in ghettos in Poland. The following excerpt comes from pages 82, 83, and 84 of The Art of War by Sun Tzu translated by General Samuel B. Griffith and I believe the advice will decrease the probability that our country will ever fight again the way that we did in Vietnam. "24. Now there are five circumstances in which victory may be predicted: 25. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious. 26. He who understands how to use large and small forces will be victorious. Tu Yu: There are circumstances in war when many cannot attack few, and others when the weak can master the strong. One able to manipulate such circumstances will be victorious. 27. He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious. Tu Yu: Therefore, Mencius said: 'The appropriate season is not as important as the advantages of the ground; these are not as important as harmonious human relations.' 28. He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious. Ch'en Hao: Create an invincible army and await the enemy's momeny of vulnerability. Ho Yen-hsi:... A gentleman said: 'To rely on rustics and not prepare is the greatest of crimes; to be prepared before-hand for any contingency is the greatest of virtues.' 29. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious. Tu Yu:... Therefore Master Wang said: 'To make appointments is the province of the sovereign; to decide on battle, that of the general.' Wang Hsi:...A sovereign of high character and intelligence must be able to know the right man, should place the responsibility on him, and expect results. Ho Yen-hsi:... Now in war there may be one hundred changes in each step. When one sees he can, he advances; when he sees that things are difficult, he retires. To say that a general must await commands of the sovereign in such circumstances is like informing a superior that you wish to put out a fire. Before the order to do so arrives the ashes are cold. And it is said one must consult the Army Supervisor in these matters! This is as if in building a house beside the road one took advice from those who pass by. Of course the work would never be completed! To put a rein on an able general while at the same time asking him to suppress a cunning enemy is like tying up the Black Hound of Han and then ordering him to catch elusive hares? What is the difference? 30. It is in these five matters that the way to victory is known. 31. Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. 32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. 33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.' Li Ch'uan: Such people are called 'mad bandits'. What can they expect if not defeat?" My website is http://www.geocities.com/kstremskyforpresident People may e-mail me at kstremskyforpresident@yahoo.com. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004 The following was posted on The Green Papers in September 2002. KILLING FREE SPEECH: The media should not be surprised that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has a lot of supporters for limiting political speech. The media contributes to the problem by not giving much coverage to little known candidates. In New Hampshire, some newspapers constantly forget to mention that I am running as a Republican for the United States Senate when they mention a Republican opponent of mine. Many people think a newspaper that says it supports political speech is a liar when it fails to mention all the Republican challengers for United States Senate from New Hampshire when it mentions a particular Republican candidate for United States Senate from New Hampshire. On August 7, 2002, I was the only candidate for United States Senate from New Hampshire who posted information on the League of Women Voters website which is http://www.dnet.org. One of the questions candidates are asked deals with campaign finance reform. If dnet.org did not limit the amount of characters each section could have, I would have the campaign finance refom section in this letter on that website. There is not much difference between Senator Bob Smith and Congressman John Sununu on the issues. There is, however, a great deal of difference on several issues between they and myself. They do not discuss on their websites much information dealing with campaign finance reform, election reform, and tort reform. Neither of them mention using Bayh-Dole on their websites to lessen prescription drug prices even though it has been the Law of the Land for many years. Bayh-Dole may be found at Duke University's website which is http://www.duke.edu. Bayh-Dole allows the federal government to license patents based on federal government research to other companies. The more companies that make the same drug the lower the price of the drug will probably be. My proposals dealing with soldiers and veterans discussed on my website do more for our soldiers and veterans than their proposals on their websites. The media should not be surprised if within 50 years Freedom of the Press is lost. The only Republican candidate for United States Senate from New Hampshire who discusses the Bill of Rights in great detail on a website is me. The only candidate who educates the voters a great deal about the issues is me. I believe that Trade Promotion Authority is not constitutional because of Article Two of the United States Constitution which says a Treaty requires the Advice and Consent of the United States Senate. Last year, I think Congressman John Sununu said the President of the United States of America should have Trade Promotion Authority because he did not think 535 members of Congress should be involved in making trade agreements. Does he think 535 members of Congress should be involved in making laws? Does he think the President of the United States of America should have the power to say to Congress I want this law passed up or down without changes? Does Congressman John Sununu understand why we have separation of government powers and checks and balances? Does Congressman John Sununu realize that the Legislative Branch of government according to the Constitution is the most powerful branch of government and that many members of Congress have given power to the President of the United States of America that the President of the United States of America is not supposed to have. If you do not believe me, read Article One of the United States Constitution and then think about U.S. history. For additional information on Mr. Stremsky's views on Freedom of the Press, visit this page on his site: http://resumes.yahoo.com/kstremskyforpresident2/platform4 [link added 7 September 2002 -Ed]. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: TAX DEDUCTIBLE CAMPAIGN FUND The Federal Government should allow people to contribute as much money as they want to a tax deductible campaign fund that will help candidates for the United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and Governor run for elective office when the candidate agrees to spend less than one million dollars on a primary election or a general election. The Federal Government might want to allow candidates to obtain money from the campaign fund when they agree to spend less than ten million dollars on a primary election or a general election. I am not sure if the limit should be one million dollars or ten million dollars. The campaign fund should also help candidates for President of the United States of America who agree to spend less than twenty million dollars on primary elections. Congress might want the limit to be fifty million instead of twenty million dollars. CAMPAIGN FINANCE Campaign Finance Reform is discussed in the March 21, 2002 New York Times. Individuals, unions, businesses, non profits, political parties, and political action committees should be allowed to spend as much money as they want on political advertising any time they want including within 60 days of an election. If political advertising is restricted, Amendment One of the United States Constitution is weakened. Amendment One of the United States Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When political advertising is restricted, freedom of speech does not happen. When political advertising is restricted, the ability of people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievnaces" is lessened. Individuals, businesses, unions, non profits. political parties, and political action committees should be allowed to discuss issues without mentioning the names of candidates. Individuals, businesses, unions, non profits, political parties, and political action committees should be able to say who they do not want to be elected and why in political advertisements. Individuals, businesses, unions, non profits, political parties, and political action committees should only be allowed to endorse a candidate and say why they want the candidate elected after the candidate has given them written permission to endorse the candidate. A candidate should be allowed to say in writing when the candidate does not want to be endorsed by someone or some organization and that person or organization should have to stop endorsing the candidate. If political advertising is restricted, incumbents have an easier time getting re-elected. Congress does not have the power to limit how much money a candidate may spend on his/her campaign because of Amendment One of the United States Constitution. Congress does have the power to limit how much money and other types of contributions that individuals, businesses, unions, non profits, political parties, and political action committees may contribute to candidates because contributions are a type of commerce. Congress could say that individuals other than a candidate may not contribute more than $1,000 to a candidate's election. Congress does have the power to say that businesses and unions may not contribute any money and other types of contributions to candidates and political parties. Congress does have the power to say that individuals may not contribute more than $10,000 a year to political parties. CAMPAIGN LAW SHOULD BE THE FOLLOWING An individual other than a candidate should be allowed to contribute up to $10,000 to a candidate's particular election. An individual should be allowed to contribute $10,000 for a 2002 election and another $10,000 election for a 2004 election after January 2003. Unions, businesses, and non profits should not be allowed to make contributions to candidates. Union, businesses, and non profits should not be allowed to contribute more than $5,000 a year to political parties. An individual should be allowed to contribute up to $100,000 a year to political parties. Political parties should be allowed to contribute as much money as they want to candidates. Political action committees should only be allowed to contribute to a candidate's campaign when the candidate controls the political action committee. The Federal Election Commission should only fine a campaign, a candidate, and a treasurer when the camapign has done something significantly wrong. I think the Federal Election Commission is imposing fines when fines should not be imposed. The fines can be significant and they are discussed on the Federal Election Commission's website which is www.fec.gov. BANK AS CAMPAIGN TREASURER A campaign should be allowed to choose a bank as treasurer. Contributions could be mailed to a bank. The bank could file information electronically with the Federal Election Commission that includes name, address, and amount of contribution every two weeks. The bank could also file electronically with the Federal Election Commission that says how much the campaign has spent and what the campaign has spent money on every two weeks. A bank could receive between 5 percent and 35 percent of contributions not contributed by the candidate to act as campaign treasurer. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN TREASURER COMMISSION Congress should create a Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission. The Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission should allow candidates for the United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, President of the United States of America, and Governor to choose the Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission as treasurer. If a candidate chooses the Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission as treasurer, the Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission would receive a percentage of contributions. The Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission could receive between five percent and twenty-five percent of contributions not contributed by the candidate. Donations to a candidate's campaign could be mailed to the Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission. The Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission would take its fee and then let the candidate know how much money the canidate has to spend from the contributions in a checking account the Federal Election Commission could obtain monthly statements from. The Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission would tell the Federal Election Commission electronically the names, addresses, and amounts of money that have been contributed every two weeks. The Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission would tell the Federal Election Commission every two weeks how much money the campaign has spent and what the campaign has spent money on. ELECTION REFORM: ELECTIONS Federal, state, and local elections should take place on weekends. A person should be able to vote by absentee ballot when the person will be in the locality on the day of the election. A person could be required to vote by absentee ballot at City Hall before the election. A person should have to show a photo driver's license or a photo non driver's license to vote in primary elections and general elections to reduce voter fraud. All voting in Congressional and Presidential elections should end at 11:45 pm Eastern Standard Time [NOTE: 0445 the following day UTC- REB~A] everywhere in the country. Congressional and Presidential primary elections could end before May 15. Congressional and Presidential general elections could be in September instead of November. Ballots should include none of the above boxes for President of the United States of America, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives. If a none of the above box obtains more than fifty percent of the votes cast for a particular position, another election should be held and the people who received fewer votes than none of the above for the particular position should not be allowed to participate in the special election. BALLOTS I do not think people should have to pay any filing fees and meet any petition requirements to get their names on Presidential primary ballots, United States Senate ballots, United States House of Representatives ballots, and Governor ballots. I believe the Federal Government should pay the states for the printing of these ballots. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES The following suggestions dealing with Presidential primaries might encourage more people and better people to run for President of the United States of America. All states should have primaries. New Hampshire should have the first primary. The primaries of the five states with the smallest populations should take place three weeks after the primary in New Hampshire. The primaries of the next five smallest population states should take place three weeks later. The primaries of five states should take place every three weeks until the primaries in thirty-six states have taken place. A month after the primaries of thirty-six states have taken place, the primaries of the fourteen most populous states should take place on the same day. ELECTORAL COLLEGE A constitutional amendment should be passed that improves the Electoral College by having the winner of a state receiving two Electoral votes and the winner of a Congressional district receiving one Electoral vote. Electors should have to support the candidates they are pledged. If a tie takes place, the United States House of Representatives should choose the President of the United States of America. REFERENDUMS An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says that when at least 60 percent of the voters who are at least 18 years of age vote for a referendum, the referendum shall become law. When at least 70 percent of the United States House of Representatives wants this law that was created by referendum vetoed, this law shall be vetoed. REMOVING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM OFFICE An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives voters who live in a Congressional district the ability to remove from office their Representative from the United States House of Representatives. A Representative should be removed when at least 60 percent of the voters in a district vote for the removal. An election for another Representative should take place within two months. The Representative who was removed should not be allowed to participate in this special election. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives voters in a state the power to remove their Senator from the United States Senate. A Senator should be removed when at least 60 percent of the voters living in a state vote for the removal of their United States Senator. An election for another United States Senator should be held two months later. The Senator who was removed from office should not be allowed to participate in this election. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says when a United States Senator dies or resigns from office as a United States Senator, the Governor of the state the Senator came from gets to pick a temporary United States Senator who will hold office until a special election is held. An election for a permanent United States Senator should be held within two months of the death or resignation of a United States Senator. The temporary Senator should be allowed to participate in this special election. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives voters the power to remove the President of the United States of America from office. The President of the United States of America should be removed from office when at least 80 percent of the voters of the United States of America vote for the removal of the President of the United States of America. If the President of the United States of America and the Vice President of the United States of America are removed from office, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives should become President of the United States of America. TERM LIMITS I do not support term limits because I believe they would keep the best people from serving when we need them the most. Term limits would have kept former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from serving as long as he did which would have been a shame. Term limits might increase mediocrity. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for United States Senate Republican candidate for President of the United States of America kstremskyforsenate1@yahoo.com I e-mailed the following in July 2002. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I liked your comments on my Vox Populi dealing with How to increase membership in the Republican party. I do realize that the American people re-elected President Bill Clinton in 1996. I think because of what happened with Monica Lewinsky after 1996 and the impeachment proceedings that the American people will not re-elect a President of the United States of America who is unethical in office if the person the President of the United States of America is running against is not more unethical. I forgot to mention that the ethics of thr contender may not be worse than the incumbent for my prediction to take place. I do believe the people of the United States of America will continue to elect unethical people President of the United States of America. I think most Americans will care more about the ethics of a President of the United States of America after the person becomes President of the United States of America. In 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton and contributed $100 to his campaign because I thought his public character was better than President Bush's public character. Iran Contra and President Bush's use of racism (Willie Horton) ad ticked me off. After President Clinton did things I considered to be unethical in office, I decided to never vote again for a President of the United States of America who is unethical. If I do not like the people running, I will write in someone's name or none of the above. If you decide to discuss this Vox Populi or anything else I write in the future, please do because I know I am often wrong. If the stock market continues to nose dive and Democrats decide to use the tactics that are discussed in the Art of War by Sun Tzu translated by Samuel B. Griffith. I believe they will get at least two-thirds of the United States House of Representatives. I do discuss campaign strategy on my website and Democrats and Republicans may benefit from the information. Page 17 of my website deals with Machiavelli's Discourses. Machiavelli liked Republics and he discusses them in great detail in his Discourses. I believe Machiavelli's The Prince is a minor work when The Prince is compared to the Discourses. People who want to learn about why Republics end should read Machiavelli's Discourses. I am now working on The Prince by Machiavelli on page 18 of my website. I will be discussing the Art of War in greater detail than I already have after I discuss The Prince in greater detail than I have. People who have money are more likely to defeat their opponents if they use successful tactics from war, businesses, television, and past political campaigns. I do recommend that candidates study the campaigns of British candidates in the 19th century. Impeachment will probably only occur if the American people turn on President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney do not discuss their dealings with the energy industry in great detail and the stock market continues to decline significantly, this may happen. It is also possible that trade wars similar to the ones that caused the Great Depression could take place if Europe and Japan decide to retaliate against the United States of America because of our significant increase in farm subsidies and tariffs on steel. I doubt any Congress will remove a President of the United States of America from office who is not hated by the American people if the person is competent in military matters and/or the person has not committed a significant crime. I do consider perjury in a court of law on a matter not dealing with national security to be a "high Crime" when a President of the United States of America does it. I do realize that a President of the United States of America sometimes has to lie when national security matters are discussed. If a person does not understand why, I highly recommend the person read the Art of War by Sun Tzu. I believe saying no comment when a question is asked the person does not want to answer is better than perjury. A person may not be made to speak about anything the person does not want to talk about in a court room or any place else because freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. A President of the United States of America does not have to answer questions from Congress the President of the United States of America does not want to answer because the President of the United States of America does not have to talk about anything the President of the United States of America does not want to talk about. A President of the United States of America does have to give a State of the Union address because of Article Two, Section Three of the United States Constitution. A President of the United States of America could give a S a President of the United States of America, a United States Senator, or a member of Congress from office via a special election. I discuss this topic on my website in my MORE POLITICAL POWER FOR CITIZENS section on part three of my political resume which a person may get to from my website. The beginning of the section says "An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives citizens of the United States of America who live in a Congressional district the ability to remove from office their Representative to the United States House of Representatives. A Representative to the United States House of Representatives should be removed from office when at least sixty percent of the voters in the district vote for the removal of the Representative. An election for another Representative for the Congressional district should take place within two months of the removal. The Representative who was removed should not be allowed to participate in this election. I discuss several amendments to the United States Constitution that would increase the power of states on part three of my political retate of the Union Address that says "The State of the Union is good and I am trying to make things better." I do want a constitutional amendment passed that gives voters the ability to removesume. A constitutional amendment does not have to be passed that gives Congress the ability to Declare a National Emergency. Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution says Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions." Artcle One, Section Eight also gives Congress the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof." Congress can just pass a law that says that Congress may only take money out of Social Security and Medicare for a non Social Security purpose or non Medicare purpose when Congress and the President of the United States of America Declare a National Emergency. Congress can always pass a law later on that eliminates this law. A constitutional amendment dealing with A National Emergency is more likely to keep Congress from spending money from Social Security and Medicare for purposes other than Social Security and Medicare. I do not believe that Civil Liberties should ever be suspended except for the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Constitution does give Congress the ability to suspend the Civil Liberty which is the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Article One, Section 9 says "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." I do discuss many Civil Liberties that the Federal Government infringes on a regular basis on my website. I discuss the Bill of Rights in greater detail on my website than most candidates for elective office. I do not want our Republic to become an Empire similar to the Roman Empire. Civil liberties were infringed during the Civil War and during World War 2 that should not have been infringed. I agree with you that not much has changed since September 11. Our modern War with terrorism began when our Marines were murdered in Lebanon in the early 1980s and we did not do anything significant about it. Our country also decided not to do anything significant after Pan Am 103 was blown up more than a decade ago. People who want to learn why intelligence failures happen should watch Tora! Tora! Tora! which is about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I work for a video store and the movie is my favorite war movie. I hope that readers of The Green Papers will check out my website and e-mail feedback to me at kstremskyforsenate1@yahoo.com. If there are other topics readers think I should also discuss, I hope they will tell me. I am running for elective office to get the issues discussed. I doubt I will win elective office in the future because the candidate who is most likely to win elective office only discusses a few issues and spends a great deal of money on a campaign. I am not accepting contributions at this time from anyone besides myself because I have not been able to find a campaign treasurer who will accept contributions from others who is willing to risk paying the high fines the Federal Election Commission is able to impose on campaigns. I do hope to spend a great deal of money discussing the issues in the future. I do hope that readers of The Green Papers will ask members of Congress to create a Federal Campaign Treasurer Commission. I also hope that readers of The Green Papers will vote for me and tell others about me. I do not know of any other candidate in history who discusses as much negative information about the candidate on a candidate's website than I do on my website. I do not know of any other candidate who discusses more issues and amendments to the United States Constitution than I do on a website. I believe the amendments I discuss on my website will help our country deal with some of the problems Republics have that Machiavelli discusses in his Discourses. Sincerely, Kenneth Stremsky Republican candidate for the United States Senate Republican candidate for President of the United States of America I e-mailed the following comments to Richard E. Berg Andersson on July 24, 2002 after he commented on the previous letter on The Green Papers. I agree with you that "much too much is made of Presidential Ethics in the first place: many a flawed man has served fairly well in Our Nation's Highest Office and numerous are the virtuous who have been largely failures. But, when it comes to brass tacks, Americans are electing a Candidate for Public Office - not a candidate for Sainthood - whenever they step into the voting booth and the results of a particular election are going to reflect this as much, if not more than anything else!" I have many flaws and I discuss many of them on my website. I have never been and will never be a Saint. I enjoy life too much to be a Saint. I learned how short life can be when a friend of mine was murdered by a drunk driver in 1980. I believe a smart candidate for elective office wants the voters to know many of the candidate's faults before primary election day so that other candidates or the media are not able to hurt the candidate's campaign much or harm the candidate much if the candidate becomes an elected official. I do think the American people want a President of the United States of America to usually be truthful and usually be ethical. I am usually truthful and ethical. If President Clinton had been smart, he would have told the truth on questions about his sex life dealing with the Paula Jones trial or refused to answer questions dealing with his sex life that did not involve Paula Jones. When he decided to address the nation on national television, he should have either admitted to having had sex with Monica Lewinsky or said his sex life was none of the business of the American people. If he had said his sex life was none of the American people's business, he would have regained my respect that he had lost. I hope you are right that Democrats will not gain two-thirds of the House of Representatives. I do not think much of President Bush's crisis handling skills and unwillingness to answer questions dealing with the energy industry that has helped him and Vice President Dick Cheney greatly. I believe that Republicans that tie their campaigns to closely with President Bush are more likely to lose than candidates the voters believe are independent. I look forward to hearing your views dealing with suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. I agree with you that a President of the United States of America who does not answer questions from Congress the President of the United States of America does not like is not likely to get funding for projects the President of the United States of America supports. Many Presidents of the United States of America would have been more successful if they had provided Congress with a lot more information than members of Congress had ever hoped to obtain. The more information that a President of the United States of America gives to Congress especially on topics the President of the United States of America does not like to discuss the more likely that Congress will fund the projects that the President of the United States of America supports a great deal. The American people I believe are more likely to ask their members of Congress to support the proposals of a President of the United States of America when a President of the United States of America when a President of the United States of America gives a great deal of information about the proposals. I believe that this is especially the case when as a candidate in primaries the President of the United States of America had discussed many of the candidate's proposals a great deal on a website. Our country has elected Presidents of the United States of America who did not accomplish much of anything as President of the United States of America because they did not have a MANDATE for change before they got elected. If those Presidents of the United States of America had read Machiavelli who realized better than most how hard great change is to bring about, they might have used some of Machiavelli's kinder techniques and kinder techniques from the Art of War by Sun Tzu to bring change about. Feel free to comment on anything I write or say on my website, a future website, or anywhere else. I hope readers of my comments on The Green Papers will comment on my thoughts on The Green Papers. I may respond to those readers comments. I also hope that readers of my website will consider posting their views on my comments from my website on Vox Populis to the Green Papers. I may respond to those comments as well. Great debates like the Lincoln-Douglas debates are more likely to protect the Civil Liberties of our citizens than most of the debates today that are mostly useless sound bites. I am glad the League of Women Voters website located at www.dnet.org allows candidates to post their views in close proximity to the views of their competitors. I hope that voters will ask candidates for elective office to post information on dnet.org. I also hope that dnet.org will allow candidates to ask each other questions and post the information on the website. Sincerely, Kenneth Stremsky The following was posted on The Green Papers in July 2002. How to increase membership in the Republican Party Sunday, July 21, 2002 by Kenneth Stremsky How to increase membership in the Republican Party Kenneth Stremskywrites: I am running for the United States Senate from New Hampshire in 2002 and President of the United States of America in 2004 as a Republican. I am a Republican because I believe the best form of government is a Republic that allows its people to elect their leaders. My website is http://www.geocities.com/kstremsky On my website I discuss negative information about myself, including some of my ethical lapses in judgement, because I believe the voters have a right to know a lot about a candidate before election day. [NOTE: Mr. Stremsky is on the Republican ballot in the New Hampshire Primary scheduled for Tuesday 10 September 2002-- TheGreenPapers.com] I discuss more issues on my website than most candidates discuss on their websites. For example, I discuss Niccolo Machiavelli's Discourses and I plan on discussing the Art of War written by Sun Tzu in great detail on my website. Niccolo Machiavelli's works and the Art of War by Sun Tzu have shaped my political philosophy and my campaign strategies. I have a long campaign strategy section on my website that may help other people win elective office. Other authors have also shaped my political philosophy and campaign strategy. I hope to have a better website in the future. I also list many of my positions on the League of Women Voters website which is http://www.dnet.org. One needs to click on 'New Hampshire' and then 'Senators' to read my positions on the issues. The League of Women Voters site allows about 3850 characters per section. I wish the site allowed 7000 characters for Election Reform and Campaign Finance Reform. I discuss the topics I discuss on 'dnet.org' in greater detail on my own website. I hope that readers of 'The Green Papers' will e-mail feedback to me at . I also hope they will tell others about my website. I believe in limited government and I do not trust government when government has too much power. Governments should not tell people who are at least 18 years of age what they may do with their own bodies. The Bill of Rights discusses some of the civil liberties that citizens of the United States of America have. I do not believe in weak government. I believe our country should have a strong government. The preamble of the United States Constitution says: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States." I believe our country needs a strong government that maintains law and order, protects us from our domestic and foreign enemies, "promotes the general Welfare," and makes sure we and our descendents have the "Blessings of Liberty." The following ideas will help the Republican Party increase its membership in New Hampshire and reduce the chances that the Republican Party will lose seats in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate: One. Republican candidates should distance themselves from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney who do not have much ethics because they have not told the American people everything they should tell them about their dealings with Enron and the oil industry. Their unwillingness to tell the truth makes me think there are bigger things they are trying to hide. I do not think the American people will re-elect another unethical President of the United States of America the way they did President Clinton. Two. The Republican Party should not be known as the party that treats women as second class citizens. Women have the same unalienable rights that men have and among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. The Human Life Amendment would make women into SLAVES for reproduction and I am against the Human Life Amendment. I do not believe any government should have the power to keep women from having abortions. Three. The Republican Party should not be known as the party that treats homosexuals as second class citizens. Homosexuals have the same rights that heterosexuals have. No government should have the power to keep homosexuals from marrying and adopting children. Four. The Republican Party should be known as the party that believes businesses should behave in an ethical fashion. The budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission should at least be tripled and the number of employees at the Securities and Exchange Commission should be at least be doubled. The Securities and Exchange Commission should regulate accountants instead of an Independent Accounting Board which would probably be independent of the influence of accountants in name only. White collar criminals should serve hard time in maximum security prisons and face penalties significantly harsher than President Bush has mentioned. President Bush's hands off policies concerning regulation dealing with Enron and other companies has caused Americans to lose billions of dollars in the stock market. Five. The Republican Party should ask President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to resign before the November election and allow the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives [NOTE: the Speaker of the U.S. House is Congressman Dennis Hastert of Illinois- TheGreenPapers.com] to become President of the United States of America. If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney do not resign before November, I think the Democratic Party will comprise more than two-thirds of the United States House of Representatives and will have more than 55 Senators next year. I will not be surprised if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached next year if they do not resign. Six. The Republican Party should allow candidates to post their positions on a website similar to the website of the League of Women Voters which is http://www.dnet.org. The website should allow candidates to have 7000 characters per section and allow candidates to have fifteen sections. Candidates should be allowed to ask opponents questions on the website. Seven. The Republican Party should support Bayh-Dole which allows the Federal Government to license the patents of prescription drugs based on Federal Government research to other companies. Information dealing with Bayh-Dole is discussed on Duke University's website which is http://www.duke.edu. If more companies are able to make the same drugs, drug prices will probably decline. Eight. The Republican Party should say that money from the Social Security tax should only be used for the Social Security Administration and the Medicare tax should only be used for Medicare except when Congress and the President of the United States of America declare a National Emergency. A National Emergency should only be declared when at least 60 percent of the United States Senate, at least 60 percent of the United States House of Representatives vote for a National Emergency approved of by the President of the United States of America. The last time our country had a National Emergency was World War II. Nine. The Republican Party should realize that Trade Promotion Authority for the President of the United States of America is not constitutional because the United States Constitution says that a treaty requires the Advice and Consent of the United States Senate. Trade agreements are treaties and people with an IQ above 50 should realize this. Ten. The Republican Party should support trade agreements that are win for us and win for other countries. The United States of America increases the probability that trade wars will take place- trade wars similar to those that helped cause the Great Depression- when the United States of America places tariffs and import restrictions on countries that have decent human rights records and fair elections. Eleven. The Republican Party should realize that it is stupid to arm our enemies and defend our enemies. The current government of Saudi Arabia is an enemy of the United States of America. The current government of Saudi Arabia has helped terrorist groups that hate the United States of America. The current goverment of Saudi Arabia is holding female citizens of the United States of America prisoner in Saudi Arabia. Twelve. The Republican Party should stop being a puppet of the oil industry and the Republican Party should start caring about the environment. The Republican Party should support tax incentives that increase the likelihood that automobile manufacturers will make cars similar to the Toyota Prius that has a hybrid engine that gets great gas mileage. I believe humans have the ability to make heavy pickup trucks that are able to get great gas mileage because of hybrid engines. The Republican Party should support the hydrogen fuel cell industry via tax incentives and research funding. Thirteen. The Republican Party should not support the current War on Drugs because many of the tactics being used are not constitutional. Prohibition did not work against alcohol and prohibition is not working against illegal drugs. People who are at least 18 years of age should be allowed to buy currently illegal drugs and sell such drugs to people who are at least 18 years of age. I believe people have a right to ruin their own lives. Fourteen. The Republican Party should make sure that governments do not infringe on civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Federal Government, many state governments, and many local governments infringe on our civil liberties on a regular basis. Fifteen. The Republican Party should support the creation of a National Health Maintenance Organization that will be similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits programs discussed at http://www.opm.gov. The Republican Party should be the party that makes sure that any American who wants health insurance is able to have health insurance. Non-profit health insurers and for profit health insurers should be allowed to compete with this National Health Maintenance Organization. Sincerely, Kenneth Scot Stremsky Republican candidate for United States Senate from New Hampshire in 2002 and Republican candidate for President of the United States of America in 2004. e-mail: website: http://www.geocities.com/kstremsky I e-mailed the following letter to Richard E. Berg-Andersson on July 24, 2002 after I read his comments on Israel and an Arab Palestine discussed on his July 17 Commentary. Dear Richard E. Berg-Andersson: I liked your comments dealing with Israel and an Arab Palestine state very much. I would prefer that an Arab Palestine state be carved out of present day Jordan. I hope an Arab Palestine state will exist somewhere in the Middle East someday. If an Arab Palestine state is located where Palestinians were promised after World War 1, so be it. My mother is an orthodox Jew and she lives in Israel. I am a monotheist. No other religious term describes my religious beliefs well. I do discuss some of my religious beliefs on page 16 of my website. Sincerely, Ken Stremsky