Previous Page    Next Page

Subject: to the followers........
Date: 6/22/99

If any of you are genuinely seekers of the truth, I would advise looking into several media/internet sources and not just bits and pieces taken out of context from a single web sight which blatantly leans one particular way. How shallow it is to spout what you read here as "the truth". If you are sincerely interested in the impending Presidential campaign, then I would suggest picking up this weeks TIME and NEWSWEEK (both feature Bush), watch CNN, maybe Dan Rather (for you liberals in the crowd), and read your frickin newspaper (what a novel idea). Do a little investigation with your own mind and perhaps you'll open it up a bit and forgo preconceived notions based on political parties and special interest.

M


Subject: Person defined
Date: 6/21/99

Greetings Zak,

I've been to your web site and I congratulate you on your work for the freedom of all. Thank you. Below please find the word person defined. In the lawyer's attempt to include you in the trappings for a corporation, he's failed to note that their rules and regulations do not apply to you!

"PERSON" DEFINED

Supreme Court in the case of Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) made it perfectly clear that you and I, the Sovereigns, cannot be named in any statute as merely a "person," or "any person." You and I are members of the "Sovereignty" as defined in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1885) and the Dred Scott case, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

In common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign and a statute employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so. See: United States v. United Mine Workers of America, App. D.C., 67

S.Ct. 677, 687, 330 US 258, 91 L.Ed. 884

In common usage the word "person" does not include the Sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the Sovereign. See: United States v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill. 2 F.R.D. 528, 530.

Since in common usage the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it. See: United States v. Cooper Corporation, N.Y., 61 S.Ct. 742, 743, 744, 312 US 600, 85 L.Ed. 1071.

The lawyer is attempting to draw you under the controls of government. However, the commission's authority is only over corporations.

Steadfastly,

John Howard Freeman

Web site: Sovereign Man! http://members.tripod.com/~Autarchic/index.html


Subject: Nice site
Date: 6/21/99

I'm sure your site will have continued success after GW Bush is the President of the United States of America.

Subject: Support for George Bush Jr.
Date: 6/21/99

I too have a site dedicated to George W. Bush, aka George Bush Jr. or Darth Bush. It can be found at www.georgebush2k.org. A lot of it isn't up yet, but it should be within the next couple days.

Thanks

Subject: Keep up the good work
Date: 6/21/99

Just viewed your site at the suggestion of my brother. As a former resident of Texas, I found it particularly amusing. I'll keep checking in from time to time to see how things progress. Best of luck with the FEC.

Regards,

Robert Atlanta, GA

Subject: an idea for ya
Date: 6/21/99

Here's an idea for you, and maybe we can make money from this. I'm not going to go ahead and register this cause frankly I don't have the funds. However I'll take you on your word if you use this idea that you give me either some money or at least some credit.

How about registering "www.screwgwbush.com" and making a website showing what an a-hole he is?

Not sure if this is legal, but it seems so. The only thing is that the secret service might launch an investigation on the site. But if you get some advertisers and get some press coverage, I figure you could make some major mula.

Anthony


Subject: Interesting
Date: 6/21/99

Dear Mr. Exley,

I support your right to parody Presidential hopeful G.W. Bush's website and campaign. So will the courts (and they have--see Larry Flynt V. J. Falwell.)

However, I wonder at your repeated attempts to point out the candidates' hypocrisy (a word which, according to your "letters" section has multiple spellings). For one, G.W. didn't pass the mandatory minimum laws in this country, however idiotic they may be. He didn't start the war on drugs either--a war which I'll point out to you is whole-heartedly supported by our current administration. Clinton has supported of increased spending on this "war" every year he has been in office. Talk about hypocrites. I wonder why you'd spend time and energy in an attempt to ruin Bush's campaign, when the current president has done nothing to help the very situation you complain about. It leads to the conclusion that you choose to ignore some hypocrites and unveil others. Clinton has friends in prison for cocaine crimes. He admits to smoking pot. Yet he has increased the budget for the war on drugs, allowed the highly inconsitutional practices of search and seizure to continue, and has not changed the mandatory minimum laws one iota. These are not partisan ramblings; they are a matter of record. Yet, you choose to pick on a man who has never had the ability to alter federal law, while leaving the one who can and does make federal law alone!!!

This leads me to the interesting conclusion that you are a pro-Gore Democrat whose main goal here is to run a grass-roots smear campaign against Bush.

Beyond this: I recently saw a letter in Harper's in which you are representing yourself as a Bush campaign worker. This is beyond satire. It is misleading. The FEC will see this, and unfortunately for you and free speech will probably try to shut you down. Running this site is one thing; replying to inquiries as if you are actually connected to the Bush campaign is fraud and borderline libelous speech (especially when you discuss his alleged cocaine use in the text of that letter).

I hope, for the sake of the campaign, Gov. Bush chooses to ignore you. I think this would be more approprite than gunning for you. The extent of your own hypocrisy in choosing to ignore a liberal's refusal to revamp the idiotic war on drugs while attacking the conservative's non-existant federal policies will sink your intellectual ship anyway. As a man who voted for Clinton in past elections, your site and his complete hypocrisy has turned me away from the Democrats altogether.

You probably won't print this anyway; it contains a valid argument against your so called intent with this site, and the truth about Clinton.

YRS

Sean (NOTE: CLINTON HAS HAS 2 TERMS TO CHANGE THE FEDERAL LAW; BUSH HAS HAD NONE!!!)

Subject: re: website
Date: 6/21/99

Great website. It is shame you don't have a newsletter to go with it. Any dirt you dig up on G.W. I would be interested in being informed.

Phil

Subject: How Ironic!
Date: 6/22/99

Your proposing Amnesty 2000. These poor unfortunate men and women who have spent time in jail for anywheres from one time drug use to occasional drug use and were sentenced to jail under YOUR PARTY's mandatory sentencing act which took place under your Father's and Regan's administrations. Now you come along and want to release them (how benevolent of you). It must be an election year! I remember that 'mandatory sentencing' cry ringing out from your party. Lawyers could not plea bargin with the courts. The law was structered that 'they were going to pay for their crimes' One time use of weed, possession of a joint! Aw no, the Republican Right wingers wanted blood. They got it. The jails filled to overflowing. Now you come along... how ironic....whatta joke! Respectfully,

Dan
==================================================================

Subject: Audacity


I find that your audacity is only exceeded by your deceitfulness. This is not an officially sanctioned George Bush website authorized by him and I find you use of his name unethical. Delete me from your mail list Patrick Strohl Mechanicsburg PA


Subject: Your Wonderful NewsLetter
Date: 6/22/99

==================================================================
GWBUSH.COM-- I luv ya. Keep up the good work and we'll keep them cards 'n letters comin' in . . . .

Subject: Re: GWBUSH.COM update
Date: 6/22/99

==================================================================
You guys are rad. I haven't used that word since sixth grade, but that's what you are. Rad. YOU GO with that trial story. Rock on - you're making me feel like there's still hope in the world for a little teency tiny bit of justice.

Subject: New Bush site
Date: 6/22/99

Hey gwbush,

Great website. Very funny, especially Bush raising the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults to 40. I thought I'd let you know about a new Bush info site that's just gone up at http://www.georgebush2000.com/ We're trying to bring out some of the truth behind George Bush, in particular where all his money sprang from (while he's a friendly guy, he's not exactly a business mastermind). We have a link to your site and were hoping you'd reciprocate with one to ours.

Thanks, Bill Medaille medaille@onr.com webmaster http://www.georgebush2000.com/

Subject: speach at Indianapolis
Date: 6/22/99

I was wondering where I could get my hands on that speech gw gave in Indianapolis last summer.If I'm not mistaken he made a Freudian gaffe of great magnitude.I saw it on the news,but haven't seen it recently.I would love to send some video mail of that gaffe to some freinds.Sincerely,Tim .Springville,In.

Subject: A comment to Republicans-please post this
Date: 6/22/99

I have a few notes to the various Republicans who have posted their particular views in the messages here:

1. Ye who support the death penalty: You should renounce your Christian faith (I hate to be so general about your faith but I know I'm right). What exactly does the bible say about killing? On the secular side-what good does killing someone do? Does it deter criminals? Does it save money? Does it have any redeeming quality at all except to satisfy the surviving victims of a crime?

2. Someone made a long-winded remark about how all Republican presidents represent integrity and strength and Democrats represent weakness and dishonesty. Let's go through the list, shall we? 1. Abraham Lincoln. First member of the GOP to be elected president. One of the few Republicans I respect that held office. Everyone knows his actions. 2. Ulysses S Grant. Elected as war hero (this certainly means someone knows how to run the country). I personally don't have any ill feelings towards Grant, but he had one of the most corrupt administrations this country has ever seen. He was quick to pardon anyone who might have been involved as well (similar to Bush's pardon of Reagan and his goons). 3. Rutherford B Hayes. Although his administration didn't do much (except for some expansion into the Midwest with the beginnings of the homestead act), his presidency was a farce. Until 1877 the Republicans of the north defended the rights of the African-Americans in the south to vote (this was because they needed the votes, not because they weren't racists). In a compromise that allowed him to be elected president, the North withdrew all support for the blacks in the South and thus they endured incredible limitations to their voting until almost a 100 years later. 4. Chester Garfield. Didn't do anything special in office. Partially due to his assassination. 5. Benjamin Harrison. Didn't do anything special in office. Did, however, show some of the qualities of the elite Republicans (wore gloves so as not to be infected by the "common people"). 6. William F McKinley. Another Republican I respect. Was good at warfare and had a fairly progressive attitude. His assassination did give rise to one of the more powerful and beneficial Republicans that we have had... 7. Theodore Roosevelt. The Republican party, from 1901 to 1908, had a different attitude than the GOP of today. Under Theodore, we had some incredible inways into regulating business (meaning that all the meat factories were as described in Upton Sinclair's book, and the progressive Republicans did something about it). Of course, Roosevelt didn't stay with his party after the election. He moved to the Bull-moose progressive platform in 1912 (and for the only time in the history of the United States, a third party got more votes than one of the two major parties). 8. Howard Taft. A very ineffective president. He was quite conservative compared to Roosevelt and thus got nothing done. 9. Warren G Harding. Very corrupt administration. Died on a train (food poisoning). 10. Calvin Coolidge. Another do-nothing administration. 11. Herbert Hoover. A bit more effective than his predecessors, but still blinded by his party. Bush has recently stated that the government cannot create prosperity, but ask anyone who had a family member involved the works project such as the Hoover Dam and see if they don't feel that the government can help in their financial well-being. -A note on the presidents from 1920-1932-Because of Roosevelt's split in the party in the 1912 election, the Republicans became an ultra-conservative party for quite some time. Any wonder that the Great Depression occurred after a decade under their "trickle-down" politics? 12. Dwight Eisenhower. The last Republican who I can respect. He was fairly moderate and warned of the "iron-triangle" that was forming from the military-industrial complex. 13. Richard Nixon. Nixon's administration wasn't all bad. I can't say I have anything but loathing for the individual, but his foreign policies with China was quite a leap for this country. Everyone knows the rest of his story. 14. Gerald Ford. Well, at least we didn't get stuck with Spiro Agnew. 15. Ronald Reagan. For some reason, people just loved this guy. He didn't serve in the military (that didn't stop him from thinking that he did), he consulted astrologers on how to run this country, accrued a huge national dept, invaded Grenada, and got to take credit for Jimmy Carter's release of the Iran Hostages. The only positive aspect of his administration is the progress with Russia (which can really be attributed more to Gorbachev and less to Reagan, who stated that Russia was the "Evil Empire" at the beginning of his administration. 16. George H W Bush. Can't say much about this administration-George was very crafty in not doing anything to make anyone angry. Of course, there was Desert Storm (which I guess is a noble thing to stop some countries who had a very brief conflict that might affect oil prices). I guess that kept our military strong.

3. Military Strength. Someone accused Democrats of being communists who don't support the military. First of all, read about how Al Gore went to Vietnam even though his father didn't support it-and read about how Bush defended Texas against Mexico during that time. Next, read about World War II. Read about how economically depressed we were. Read about the invention and use of the A-bomb (not that I support the use of it, but I think that could be classified as military strength). Then realize that this was the biggest external threat to us since the British in the War of 1812. Also realize that for 4 terms, and Democrat sat in office to help us get through it. There are other battles and wars to talk about, but I will leave it at that.

I am doing all of this from memory, so I might have mistaken something here (but I doubt it). If anyone wants to email me about the validity of any of my comments, then do so at Tony_Walters@dell.com.


Subject: Saw your url on This is True
Date: 6/22/99

Keep up the good fight!

Micki

Subject: great job!!
Date: 6/22/99

I read about your site in Randy Cassingham's "This Is True" newsletter.

I enjoyed your web site immensely. Not just for its content, but more for your resolve in standing up for your rights. As a life-long Republican, I am honestly dissappointed to read some of the things on your web site. But as an American, I more importantly respect your right to say it.

I am glad to see that you did not just bow out when presented with the Bush attorneys' scare tactics. We have rights in this country. And, if I could "borrow" a line from another more intelligent person than me, while I do not necessarily agree with everything you say, I would fight to the death for your right to say it.

Keep up the good work!

--------------------------------------------------------------- Scott

Subject: BOGUS
Date: 6/22/99

Confusing the voting public (most with internet access cannot discern parody from reality) is foolish.


Thanks for the information about G.W. Bush. Pour it on.

Reid and Liz