First paragraph (Teaser):

Theme (composite): USA, Government, Politics, Democracy, Constitution, Bill of Rights, War, Anti-criminal-wars, Human Rights and Dignity, US 2004 Presidential Election and Potential Candidates, and Media (in terms of propaganda and misinformation)

This article is to try to help make an American and democratic potential candidate for the next U.S. presidency known more broadly, the or one of the potential candidates who has been kept out of most media, including Canadian;

Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

Note that this is a long article and if you're not interested in reading all of this, then you may nonetheless wish to use some of links to www resoures at the very end; although, I recommend - regardless from which point you decide to scroll down to these links, and if you do so - to start reading immediately following my signature.

Rest of the text:

Who said "if the Gods had Meant us to Vote They Would Have Given us Candidates" - of course meaning candidates worthy of our votes? He's Jim Hightower, the American who started the Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour,
http://www.rollingthundertour.org, and who regularly writes for or posts articles at http://www.alternet.org.

"For too long progressives have walked fearful of their shadows, whimpering and whining about what's wrong and fighting amongst themselves over crumbs. That time is over." -- Jim Hightower

In my opinion, if Dennis Kucinich's name is not on the ballot, when the time arrives for Americans to vote in November 2004, then either:

a) Americans will not have a candidate worthy of their vote (mine anyway); or,

b) there'll be the possibility of adding his name.

Now, the latter is particularly with Kerry in mind; whereas, I'm not yet adequately informed about Edwards and Sharpton, albeit definitely believe Kucinich to be the very best choice among all of the present potential and withdrawn democratic candidates.

Constitutionally, Americans must be granted their right to vote for whomever they conscientiously believe to be the very best candidate to help lead and govern their nation (as should be in any democracy); and, if Americans really care about their nation, the future, peace, the world, human rights and dignity, then the very best potential candidate
for the next US presidency is Dennis Kucinich.

People choose to vote for a considerably lesser candidate basically represent, either: human lemmings; or, people with malicious, selfish, ... malignant motives. Of course, acting like a lemming is also rather malignant behaviour.

Lemmings are rodents which ignorantly and naively follow a leader, whichever seems to be leading, over cliffs, to their deaths, self-destruction; and, this definitely is not good in the context of humans and human society.

People must shed subjectively based biases, inform ourselves as best we can, try to remain aware of propaganda, etc., and to think critically.

Different contexts, different strokes, and/or "different strokes for different folks"; however, we should always aim to apply our strokes constructively and thus without being subjectively biased, that is, Justly.

"'it was Shays' uprising and others like it at the time that prompted Jefferson to write to a friend: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."'" - Thieves in High Places - Part 4 of 9, Even the smallest dog can lift its leg on the tallest building, by Jim Hightower http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15442

If Dennis Kucinich's name is not on the ballot and Americans conscientiously add his name, then they can or will be doing what Jefferson basically referred to; only, it'd be a peaceful form of rebellion, instead of violent. All of the many millions of Americans who demonstrated in the streets, and via other manners, in order to oppose Gulf War II were peaceful rebels. There was no violence, virtually none anyway; except, from law enforcers. And, these Americans definitely were Right.

Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq are worse off than before the US did ..........................................; carpet-bombing, and used depleted uranium, cluster-bombs, etc.

Maybe - likely ? - Zion-ists are in and manipulating or running the White House, etc., possibly working - secretly, of course - with the Israeli government and Mossad; as some (official) Intelligence people have stated being plausible, which does not seem to be an unreasonable point, and for which I'm providing the immediately following links.

Note that I'm not saying that what these articles, reports, or views state is actually true, only that it's not unrealistic, and is plausible, humanly possible; in my opinion. (I actually believe that something like this has been going on, and for decades, albeit haven't yet tried to further verify, and need to eventually do so.)

Also, people must refrain from treating Zionists and Jewish people as "one and the same", as if they're all in the same league. They are not. Many and perhaps most Jewish people are not Zionists, and do stand alongside and work with other peace activists, etc.; and, that includes in the context of Palestine. I just read an article yesterday which said that three peace activists were killed in Palestine, by the Israeli forces, and these people were a Christian, a Jewish person, and another whose religion I don't recall.

Even a person who's pro-Israeli is not necessarily pro-Zionist; the person could be anti-Zionist, yet a little too ignorant and/or callous regarding the plight of Palestinians.

Anti-semitism and anti-zionism are not "one and the same", they're not synonymous. Semites are Jewish people, whereas Zionists are Jewish people who are for Jews ruling the world, and secretly plans and operate to achieve this goal. And, although not Zionists, per se, or necessarily wanting to be in league with them, there are people of other
religions, and non-religions, who are very much similar to Zionists.

The same can be said in terms of pharisees; they don't only exist among Jews. There are Christians and Muslims, and others, who are pharisiatic. It's just that this particular term may have been "coined" within Jewish culture and/or religion, or in that regard.

Reacting violently because of information like the following linked materials, and those linked at the end of this article, is unacceptable; the information only being for the purpose of awareness, alert, for us to be on our guard, careful. Once we prove that this kind of information is true, then we can use legal processes in order to try to put an end to this kind of corrupt conduct.

The 9-11 Attack on the World Trade Centre (World Trade Center) - Was Mossad behind it, to get the West to fight Islam for it? Was the CIA implicated, to legitimate a push for empire?, Oct 3 2001, updated Dec 31 2003 http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/wtc.html

The Enemy Is Very Much Within, Sept 30 2001 http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.serendipity.li/wot/enemy.htm

The latter is a compilation of posts that were copied from apfn.org, which I'm not familiar with, and a link to the original is provided at the very bottom of the webpage.

Although I've, so far, read relatively little of the latter page, there seems to be interesting points or ideas, overall, while the one being specifically referred to is near the bottom of the page, and the title of the post is the following:

"Mossad Link Ignored by Media
News Embargo After Israeli Link Leak
Stern-Intel (Canada)"

Even when such views are proven to be wrong or incorrect, it is not imprduent to at least carefully consider them and to seek verification or confirmation; and, I haven't gotten around to doing that, yet, and wish to eventually do so, but am only one person, so ....

Rebels usually rebel in the "name" of Freedom, Rights, Peace, Justice, etc.; not to be tyranical - in which case they would not be rebels, but terrorists. This of course doesn't mean rebels aren't sometimes violent; Americans were in the wars which concluded with their Declaration of Independence, and the abolishment of slavery, for two examples. However, sound rebels use, and that if it gets used, violence as a very last resort; unlike terrorists, like the G.W. Bush et al administration, and all of their demented and/or awfully greedy supporters, plus other terrorists.

G.W. Bush commanded and conducted a war of entirely criminal aggression against Iraq, rather all Iraqis, and against many millions of Americans who opposed in the "name" of Freedom, Rights, Peace, Justice, etc., LIFE. Jesus Christ rebelled against pharisees - religious bigots, hypocrites, hegemons - in the "name" of Freedom, Rights, ..., Humanity; rebelling against their disgusting subjective ways, which are wickedly oppressive, etc.

Anyone who's been paying reasonable attention to the conditions in Iraq should be able to easily realise that God is not the one who or that spoke to G.W. Bush; else, maybe G.W. Bush was dyslexic, again - much more seriously, in this case. This war was of entirely criminal aggression, definitely was and always will be entirely unjustifiable.

American media people continue to say or pretend that Dennis Kucinich would not beat G.W. Bush in November 2004, and Canadian media people rather constantly omit mentionning this candidate, who is the very best of all of the potential democratic candidates for the next presidency; provably so, the best.

This post, hopefully, will help to introduce him a little more among Canadians who also deserve to learn about this candidate. After all, if Canadians are going to be told about other potential American candidates, then all of them should be fairly mentionned; else, none should be noted.

All American media people are aware of his campaign, but most American media rather feverishly work to keep this information out of or away from the public's minds. And, given that American media people cannot possibly be unaware of his campaign, they thus must deliberately choose to not cover this campaign; and, that is un- and/or anti- the US' Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is akin to racketeering, and gangsterism.

Anyway, if Dennis Kucinich becomes the candidate to run against G.W. Bush, but loses, then Americans who voted for him will nevertheless be able to honestly say that they had a real opportunity to vote for the very best possible candidate, did so, and simply lost. It's certainly better to vote for the best and to lose, than it is to wittingly or negligently vote for a lesser. These Americans would have responsibly and caringly endeavored to do their very best, entirely on Constitutional and any other reasonable grounds.

After all, Mr. Kerry highly supported this Bush administration's Gulf War II threat. Kerry has responded by saying that his support was based on the presumption that this Bush administration would adhere to honourably working with the UNSC and would abide by international laws the US government had/has agreed to adhere to. However, that is an incredible argument:

-) the several past American presidential administrations have often or usually acted against the US government's - and thus Americans' - membership responsibilities in the UN and UNSC, hence towards international law;

-) the US' Constitution requires that the government of the USA abide by international law, if ever established and agreed to, which the USA did, as well as having significantly contributed to the establishment of the UN, UNSC, and international laws the US promised to adhere to;

-) hence the present and several prior US presidential administrations not only struck against international laws the US agreed to honour, but simultaneously struck against US law;

-) the US government is the sole UNSC member state which has constantly vetoed resolutions drawn up with the intent of trying to bring peace between Israel and Palestine;

-) the latter reality can't really be credibly explained, except - at least probably - on the basis of there surely being a likely link between the Israeli government, and Mossad, with the highest office of the USA's government;

-) the latter concords with what some American and foreign Intelligence people have said, leaked, albeit remaining to be concretely proven (while nonetheless being certainly realistic and plausible, and most definitely possible);

-) those vetoes now amount to over twenty, from a report I read last Fall, 2003;

-) the most recent veto of those resolutions was in September 2003, from another article I read last Fall, 2003;

-) if any other UNSC member states placed vetoes on these particular resolutions, then their total wouldn't amount to more than a few times, while the US placed a veto on all of them, leaving that the others basically would have little, or no real or substantial significance;

-) those UNSC resolutions have undeniably been necessary, entirely justified, urgently needed, etc., and there's no way the contrary can be credibly argued;

-) several prior US presidential administrations and the CIA, possibly also other high American government offices, also in league with imperialistically capitalistic and war-mongering interests, have participated in conducting numerous enough coups d'etats around the/our world, and this is more than amply-well known, for politicians to be certainly aware of these absolutely significant cases; and,

-) all of this while definitely knowing that these decisions and acts were highly or entirely criminal, against the US Constitution and international laws the US government had/has agreed to adhere to, based on deceit and criminal corruption, etc. The hegemons know that they've acted criminally, against human rights and established laws; there's no way these people could plausibly not be aware of this.

Bill Clinton was a D-president, and he commanded - he was the CiC - an atrociously criminal aggression in Kosovo; where there are more problems, today, than there were before his unjustifiable and criminal carpet-bombing campaign. Rather than help, he exacerbated, and gravely so. That also was not a matter for NATO, for Kosovo isn't anywhere near the north atlantic; it was a matter for the UNSC, UN, and its member states. That was a war of criminal aggression; yet, even if it had been endorsed by the UNSC, the US forces nevertheless used radioactive depleted uranium munitions and cluster-bombs, both of which would be used only by psychopathic people. Both of those types of weapons have been long-enough outlawed.

There presently are reports that the use of depleted uranium munitions, which do not immediately appear as bad as cluster-bombs, have been causing toxic pollution or radioactive contamination of the water table in Afghanistan; and, there are reports of evidence for long term effects in Bosnia, Iraq from Gulf War I, among Gulf War I US troops/veterans, etc. The half-life of depleted uranium is over four billion years, and this means that generations of humans, and other living organisms, may seriously suffer consequences of this radioactive substance contaminating their environment.

Anyway, the US campaign in Kosovo rendered both Bill Clinton and General Clark war criminals. It's easy enough to deny, but not credibly.

It has also been rather broadly known since at least 1998 that Saddam Hussein didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; therefore, Gulf War II cannot be considered as justifiable or justified; only, ever less.

Thus, Mr. Kerry's excuse or argument that his support, signature, was based on the presumption(s) he claims is - realistically speaking - incredible. He thus and certainly does not represent a good candidate for the next presidency.

Yet, to try to give Mr. Kerry some "benefit of doubt", if he did truly believe that G.W. Bush et al would honour the US' agreement to abide by international law, and respect for the international community, etc., then he's at the very least incredibly incompetent; leaving, that he's certainly not a good choice for the next US presidency, let alone a best choice. A person can be good without being best, and a person can be best without being good, such as the lesser of two evils, but Kerry is neither; he's a lesser evil than Bush, maybe, but he's neither good nor best, when compared to Kucinich. He doesn't come even close to comparing with the calibre of Kucinich; nowhere within visible view.

However, as of March 19, 2003, the day prior to Gulf War II being launched, it was obvious that the UN weapons inspections were adequate, proceeding with sufficient success, and that all we needed to do was to be a little patient, a little longer. Kerry did not then oppose the launch of Gulf War II; therefore, his present defence that he signed or ratified the Bush et al Gulf War II threat on the basis that they'd respect international law remains a bogus, incredible claim. If he had truly signed on that basis, then he would have contested the actual launch of this war of entirely criminal and unjustifiable aggression; it was obvious that it was not justifiable, going into March 2003; albeit, it was also obvious, obvious-enough anyway, months prior.

So, Mr. Kerry cannot be sanely and/or competently deemed believable regarding that rather phony, or extremely incompetent, defence of his.

Additionally, while more should not be needed, Mr. Kerry wishes to be nominated to or as the candidate who'll run against Bush and based on, well, rather nothing; empty, unsupported popularity, that is, there's nothing to make his popularity credible. He wants people to believe he is qualified and would be good ... based on nothing, and distortions of reality. Of course, many or most, or maybe all, of the others provide nothing, or very little, for critical thinkers to base a competent and thus responsible decision upon; although, at least Sharpton provides meaningful substance.

However, and key, none of the other democratic primary runners steadfastly and integrally opposed Gulf War II. Some occassionally opposed, but not steadfastly, integrally; not, Dean, Edwards, ..., any of the others; only Kucinich did. And, this is easy enough to verify, so easy that it's amazing that even Canadian media people accepted to say that other potential democratic candidates, Dean anyway, were steadfastly, integrally opposed; while also leaving Kucinich unmentionned.

There are no more acceptable excuses; we're now in 2004!

Among the potential democratic candidates for the next US presidency, only Dennis Kucinich stood steadfastly and integrally opposed to Gulf War II; and, he's the only one with an appropriate and acceptable plan for pulling the US forces out of the occupation of Iraq. He would not pull US troops out in a spontaneous action or manner, but as quickly as possible; aiming to do so within 90 days as of when he'd take over the Oval office, while the pull-out would also be contingent upon the UN being able to move in with sufficient peacekeepers, etc., along with the support of Iraqis.

That is, Kucinich wishes to pull the US troops out as quickly as feasible, but without being hasty.

The US troops definitely should be pulled out of Iraq. After all of the psychopathic destruction, killing, pollution, theivery, etc., the US forces have done to Iraq and its people(s), it would not be a good idea to keep US troops there. In the end, there might not be a real choice, but if an adequate number of UN peacekeeping forces could be activated in Iraq, then it would be better for everyone involved, to pull US troops out; it'd certainly help to decrease dangers for UN personnel, UN peacekeepers, Iraqis in general, and would thus make it more possible for Iraq to be rebuilt, etc.; effectively, and more quickly and safely.

If we don't have adequate inputs, then we cannot easily make intelligent, responsible decisions. Decision makers, particularly competent ones, who work on important issues, often deal with considerble amounts of information or data; yet, Dennis Kucinich is the only present potential democratic candidate who has provided enough for me - for anyone, really - to be able to make an intelligent and responsible decision.

Kucinich's information is all verifiable, while that which isn't in a tangible sense nevertheless is in a logical sense; as long as we have an adequate understanding of what human rights and dignity mean, and what it means or should mean to responsibly live and vote in a human society.

Dennis Kucinich has established crucial issues which need to be addressed. However, he's also gone further than that and more than any politician I have ever known about; he's also established how these issues can or may be effectively addressed.

It's kind-of like a game of five-card poker in which all of the players of course want to try to win, but most don't have much of a "hand" to win with, so they bluff, bluff, and keep bluffing, hoping that all of the others will fold, before needing to disclose what one's "hand" really contains; and, if the others fold, then the hand doesn't need to be revealed, it can be kept secret. Meanwhile, one of the players knows that he has a "hand" that can or will not be beaten and thus exposes all of his cards for the other players and all onlookers to see and evaluate; four Aces, plus a wildcard (or whatever the strongest possible "hand" is).

Dennis Kucinich is the latter player. He has the strongest "hand" and has disclosed all of his cards, for all of us to see and evaluate for ourselves.

I don't know Edwards enough, yet, but am - personally - sure that he's not as qualified as Kucinich, who has addressed many crucial issues for the USA, while also explaining how he'll be able to i/ensure these will indeed be addressable; instead of leaving a greater possibility that they'll be yet-again empty political "promises".

That, of course, doesn't mean that he'll actually do what he says, not by itself; however, his political track record and life history provide ample credibility in this regard. Thus, we're provided with a complete, bonafide potential candidate for the next US presidency. "the Gods" have finally decided to present Americans with a candidate worthy of their votes.

He also demonstrated leadership quality regarding the issue of abortions, women having, or not, the right to choose. He altered a position he had on this issue, based on the serious concerns and requests of sincerely concerned individuals; he's accepted to support pro-choice, for women whose lives are in danger if they give birth. So, he's also demonstrated that he's diplomatic, capable of carefully listening to and considering the concerns of sincere others, and being able to alter his own, personal position, based on thoughtful consideration.

I'm not really for pro-choice, unless abortion is medically justifiable. And, if we completely block pro-choice, then women whose lives will be in serious danger, if they give birth, will not be allowed to choose to have an abortion; and, if a woman dies because of this, then society is a murderer. If such a woman decides to go ahead with giving birth, then this is her choice. (Other women should "simply" bear the child until birth and then put the child up for adoption by a sound couple or family - in my opinion, anyway.)

He's demonstrated authentic leadership qualities, like rarely have American politicians. And, he's a person to learn from history, instead of tending to repeat historical errors; and, given that he has more historical knowledge than prior presidents did, well, the combination of these two realities simply renders him all the more qualified.

Dennis is the first politician I've known about who states both the what, what he'll do, and the how, how he'll do whatever he has promised.

This potential presidential candidate is offering to do for the USA - incidentally, for the whole world - an authentic and realisable Dream.

One thing which may have some Canadians scared about Dennis Kucinich is that he wants to pull the USA out of both nafta and the wto; however, he does not want to end international trade, only to render it fair.

From what I recall reading, Dennis Kucinich was also against the Bill Clinton/US/Kosovo military campaign of definitely criminal assault; as well as the G.W. Bush administration's very and criminally hasty attack of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where thousands of Taliban, and possibly other Afghanis, were blatantly and atrociously massacred. The latter attack was definitely hasty, and certainly criminal; we know that the Taliban neither conducted nor orchestrated the attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001.

Dennis Kucinich is the only potential candidate for the next office of the US presidency who "the people" can truly trust to not command and conduct wars or warring; and, it's crucial, for the US troops, the US' national security, and world security and peace. US troops have not been commanded into these wars in order to serve the best interests of their nation - nor in anyone else's best interests; only to serve the greedy interests of imperialistcally capitalistic lunatics and "spoiled bratts". And, the US' military forces are to - by law - protect their nation against enemies from both without and within.

It was said earlier in the 20th century, by an American president and/or military general, that the USA will not be destroyed from without, only from within; and, the US military forces have a legal obligation, and a human responsibility, to protect their nation from "enemies from within", but they have been extremely neglecting these worst and most real of all of the enemies of their nation.

Merely being a Democrat or supporter thereof is meaningless in a similar sense to "prayers which are not accompanied with concording acts are empty", worthless, and maybe worse; could be a blatantly hypocritical individual, like pharisees, who can and often strike against the rights of others. I'm not Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Green, ...; I'm independent and seek "sacred balance". After all, a sound liberal is conservative, and vice versa; a sound liberal will want to conserve sound liberal policies, a sound conservative will want to conserve amply legitimate liberties, and both will want to be both liberal and conservative with respect to Peace; etc.

There are Republicans and Democrats whom I believe to be appreciable, some very much so, and there are many of both whom I could only despise.

Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic party member, but he's democratic, conservative, balanced. He's the best democratic party member I've ever known about, although generally didn't pay attention to politics and politicians; however, the latter's because they usually make me nautious, which Kucinich certainly does not do. I kind of feel sorry for the good members of such parties; kind of as if perceiving them all as being in the wrong party, as if they should all separate from their current parties, group, and form a new party, the Independent, "No strings attached", party.

Someone asked in a Dennis Kucinich discussion forum, which is accessable via his campaign site, if Dennis is a politician, and I'll take moment to answer, here. He's a politician, because he's a full-time member of a political party, it's his career; however, he's an outstanding politician, who isn't a politician in the common sense or connotation. On the other hand, most of us members of human societies are politicians, too; after all, if we're interested in voting, etc., and participate, then we "play" politics.

Anyway, most or all of the other potential democratic candidates primarily try to attract votes based on popularity, but even criminals can be and have been popular; in their "circles" and among admirers, anyway. Many really undeserving people are considered popular, while alert, intelligent, and responsible people naturally wonder why, how that could be; "lemminghood-ism" is one plausible cause.

Being popular, by itself, doesn't mean that the individual is good, competent, etc.

Bush has been "popular" among too many Americans and consider the atrocious, demented mess he and his administration have caused, their extremely criminal aggression against Iraq and all Iraqis, and other crimes. He and his administration continue to remain "popular" for, not most, but nevertheless far too many Americans; and, it's noteworthy, but only because of the wicked injustices and lunatical nonsense.

Al Sharpton apparently or purportedly is also quite good, in terms of issues he's mentionned that need to be addressed. He's known to have done very good work in terms of enumerating issues which do need to be addressed.

However, given that Dennis Kucinich is the only potential candidate who steadfastly, integrally, strictly stood opposed to Gulf War II and the only one with an acceptable plan for pulling US troops out of the occupation of Iraq, and to aid the UN move in and help Iraqis rebuild and regovern their country, well, this leaves that Kucinich remains the very best potential candidate for the next presidency.

Even if Sharpton and/or Edwards were or are equal to Kucinich in all other respects, Gulf War II and the ensuing and ongoing criminal occupation of Iraq, which is keeping US troops in harm's way, as they're certainly despised by many Iraqis, issue remains ever key. Sharpton and/or Edwards, then, should be more considerable for a position of vice presidency, or secretary of some-domestic-US-department, like Labour, or Education, say.

The US president being CiC of the US military forces, Pentagon, etc., must be the very best possible in this context or respect, and the best present potential candidate in this regard definitely is Kucinich; although, he may possibly be better than Sharpton regarding domestic US issues or problems, too - I'd need to verify Sharpton's issue statements, to be certain. It is certain, however, that Kucinich proved himself to be the best potential candidate for the next presidency in terms of war. He did not slip up, even minorly; not once on this topic.

Regarding the propaganda notion that Dennis could not beat G.W. Bush, Dennis is the only one of the potential candidates who can cause the greatest number of Americans who formerly refrained from voting to finally come out and vote. Many of these Americans have refrained only, or mostly, because "the Gods" hadn't provided candidates these/we people deemed or esteemed worthy of their/our votes.

Most, many anyway, Americans will Justly perceive Kerry as no better than Bush; and, Americans with this perception and who've abstained from voting in the past may or will very likely abstain, again, if Kerry is the democrat who's nominated to run against Bush.

"the Gods" have finally "decided" to present a highly keen, integral, competent, etc., and proven potential candidate; and, if his name isn't on the ballot, then Americans can use their Constitutional and human rights, and add his name to the ballot.

Some people don't like some particular aspect they say that they believe to perceive about or in Dennis Kucinich's personality, and one regular criticism - from some people anyway - is that he is not flashy enough.

Flash is nonsense, trash; it leads to people who don't deserve to be, to be rendered "popular". People should not seek PERFECTION, we need to seek amply good, competent, highly principled, etc.; these are the truly qualifying requirements, for they definitely are the only ones which are substantive. Empty, undeserved or unmerited popularity is a "fruit" of nonsense, dementia, delusion, irresponsibility.

And, allowing ourselves to be rendered or maintained in a state of delusionary thinking, instead of critically thinking, is what propagandists, et al, want. They want humans to be like lemmings; ignorant, naive, idiotic, gullible.

We certainly must not expect even a person as highly competent as Dennis Kucinich to never make a mistake, or to expect a candidate's personality to please us in absolutely every way possible. We need to seek competence, which means people who merit, earned, respect and support; not empty, or bigotted, hypocritical, ..., politicians, who constantly end up being rather cons, and thorns in our sides or minds. People who wish to pay for incompetents and wittingly so, well, they are either: awfully naive and irresponsible; or, they have plans, like fraud, in mind. There is no sane or sound reason to pay for incompetence; it's already expensive enough to pay for competence.

Most, at least many, politicians are dishonest, con people/"artists", however obviously not Dennis Kucinich; and, there's plenty of evidence for both, the former and the latter.

The mere fact that most of the other potential candidates, including the withdrawn, try to win political votes merely based on "empty", nonsensical, popularity, or inadequately established programs, strikes against the Constitutional, and human rights and dignity, of all Americans. If they're are to vote Constitutionally, then they have an obligation to do so responsibly and intelligently; rather necessarily meaning to not support "empty" popularity, or inadequately defined programs, thus inadequacy. If there isn't a track record to base a vote-decision on, then the candidate(s) must nevertheless present very sound programs and arguments, which Kerry has not done; and, I don't know about Edwards, yet, but am - personally - certain that he's a better choice than Kerry, albeit not as qualified as Kucinich.

Realistically, it'd be very difficult to best Kucinich. This doesn't mean that some of the ways he wishes to address crucial issues might not need a little ironing, to remove wrinkles, say; however, he's established a very competent and strong set of real and critical issues, and how these may be effectively addressed, that is, program.

It's rather rare that we don't need to do a little ironing; "once in awhile", occassionally, anyway. And, sometimes a hot iron isn't required, only some steam.

The only kind of popularity which is meritworthy is when the support has been earned and has been proven to be deserved. Dennis is the only potential candidate who fits this definition, that is, most, as fully as he does. Again, perhaps Sharpton is very good on domestic issues, but he wasn't of Kucinich's calibre with respect to Gulf War II; and, that's a personally crucial, key element.

Besides, Dennis is popular, regardless of what many media people have claimed and continue to say; saying and implying that he's not. After all, everyone in support of Dennis renders him popular; at least amongst them/ourselves. It should be obvious, by now, that he's certainly popular with or for me.

So what if x number of people find and make, for themselves, candidate A popular, while y people find and make, for themselves, candidate B popular, and B is better, but x is greater than y; A nevertheless remains unpopular with the y-for-B people. And, if B is a more proven candidate, the one with the greatest or most leadership qualities and track record, then although y is less than x, the y-for-B people are the ones who are Right; meaning that the greater x-for-A people represent a relatively massive number of (human) lemmings and/or unfairly biased people.

A majority can be lemmings, but only the minority who refuse to follow are intelligent, aware, responsible, and thus the ones capable of caring most. x is greater than y, but the y-for-B people are the only ones who are Right; while only displaced and/or overruled by the greater number of x naive, uninformed, irresponsible, excessively selfish or biased, ... people. It nevertheless remains crucial to maintain ingelligent, aware, responsible outlooks and conduct, and thus to refrain from being lemmings and/or joining the lemmings, or criminals of society.

Americans - and this goes for anyone or everyone - need to want to not to be lemmings and have themselves drawn to the edge and then over a cliff.

If not mass-preservation, then at least self. When the mass of lemmings starts to head for the cliff, well, then I can easily imagine better projects.

In one of the articles recently posted in the Dennis Kucinich website, there was a reference to the words of an interviewed Vietnam war veteran, who owns a number of dogs, a bunch of large hounds, and a small(er) fox terrier. He said that as small as the terrier is among the large hounds, the terrier is unafraid of the larger dogs and is the boss amongst them. (Interesting, rather fitting, and good humour.)

Anyway, if Americans who formerly refrained from voting on the basis that they didn't deem or esteem any of the candidates worthy to vote for come out and vote, then Dennis Kucinich potentially could win by a landslide. Many of those previous abstainers, including myself, refrained from voting only because they/we didn't perceive any of the candidates as worthy of our votes.

Dennis most definitely provides Hope for these/us Americans, and also for everyone else.

Some people say they'd vote for Dennis, but are afraid to do so; having "bought into the line" which says that he could not beat Bush, due to not being popular or flashy enough. That's a dangerous line to believe; it's unrealistic, and blatant nonsense.

If the best can't beat a lesser, then what does that say or prove about us, "the people"; certainly nothing good, and that we're human lemmings!

What have reports said about the turnouts or lack of turnouts for prior presidential elections; maybe 30% to 50% voted. That leaves 50% to 70% who abstained.

If we count those people, plus the present Kucinich supporters who definitely plan on voting, then Dennis realistically could win by a major landslide.

Whatever Kucinich says can be either tested, or verified, he says much that is very significant, and all of it is entirely realistic, sound, sane, humble, and highly principled.

I don't expect him to enter the Oval office with an absolutely perfect plan or program; there may be a little ironing remaining to do, and it is okay if this happens once a president is elected. The most important matter during the campaign is to at least define and present the program; and, he's done that, as well as buttressed it with explanations stating how the issues can or may be effectively addressed. If elected, then we can at least expect a little ironing to need to be done, to help i/ensure the program will be implemented as effectively and efficiently as feasible; however, not to drastically alter the program, as in the sense of hypocrisy, seriously broken promises, hegemony, etc. The latter are not matters requiring ironing; except, in the sense of jail terms, serving time behind iron bars; although, they're probably steel, really.

Let's hope the USA will become a "Rolling Thunder", by people pushing for or promoting Dennis Kucinich. Americans need to wake up and to roll with thunderous "shock and awe", by supporting and voting for Dennis; it would most certainly be "shock and awe" to the "enemies within" (and those who are from without), ....

Let not fear, fear inducers, incompetents, and liars control. Put aside fears and think critically, objectively; and, let's roll, thunderously. Maybe the earth will tremble, a little, too.

All prior American abstainers need to get out and vote in November 2004. This also goes for Americans living in Canada, like myself, and who have the legal right to vote in this upcoming 2004 US presidential election. I seldom voted in my 47 years - "the Gods" hadn't presented a worthy candidate - and this is one time that I and other prior abstainers must not allow to pass by us without voting.

This time, there is a real possibility to make a difference by voting. "the Gods" have finally provided an excellent potential candidate.

Plenty of resource materials are linked following my signature.

There's no intention of offending anyone in anything I said in this article; if some readers are offended, then it was not the purpose. My approach can or does sometimes seem harsh to some people who allow themselves to be overly-sensitive, however my views are based on a fairly critical examination and understanding; not complete, but reasonably fair.

Mike Corbeil - absentee, abroad American

WWW resource links:

There are a few links for materials specifically related to Dennis Kucinich, while the other links are for additional, and somewhat, but not specifically related, fyi materials. The latter set of links are possibly somewhat related in the sense of media organisations and propaganda machines.

Dennis Kucinich campaign
http://www.kucinich.us

Dennis Kucinch, White House / Congressman
http://www.house.gov/kucinich

There's a vast amount of information via the house.gov site-section; although, maybe most or all of the pertinent information available, there, is also provided at his campaign site.

google search for other www articles about Dennis Kucinich:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22dennis+kucinich%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Following are the links to articles regarding "some" people who, and organisations which, try to manipulate media, create propaganda.

NOTE that this is not to offend anyone, for example, Moonies and any groups which are not Moonies, but which work with, receive funding from, ..., the Moonies, or Rev. Moon and his organisation. Steven A. Hassan is a former Moonies (high level) member and has been working on helping others who've been adversely affected, like psychologically, from relationships with this organisation.

This is not meant as an attack on all Moonie members and affiliates, friends, ... thereof; only as a matter of awareness. It's (bad) enough when we err without being dishonest and due to our own mistakes; it becomes critical when we err because we've been maliciously and deliberately misinformed; etc.

Also note that although some media are owned by Rev. Moon and/or his organisation, this does not mean that the media workers are dishonest, insincere. For example, there's UPI, which was somewhat recently purchased by Rev. Moon and/or his organisation; however, UPI does not always produce bogus information, and maybe this depends on the topic of each article. After all, there may very well be and probably are at least some topics which Rev. Moon and/or his organisation, and/or affiliates, do not have any subjective reason to alter; and, in other cases, it's very possible that the media workers, themselves, have no intention of being dishonest, but lacking knowledge, they don't realise that they're being directed to produce misinformation, and thus comply.

This is a rather defensive preface for these links, however it's not really meant in that sense; it's only meant to remind readers that I have no intention, what-so-ever, of inciting anyone to commit any violent or illegal acts. Analogy: When we approach a house which has a sign to warn visitors that there's a guard-dog which potentially could represent some danger to approachers, well, this is not meant for visitors or passers-by to attack the dog; only to warn to be careful about how we approach, to be alert and on our guard.

Besides, even the most competent and honest media people can make mistakes, and probably do; at least occassionally.

Most of these links are only to "simple" articles, however, Steven Hassan provides an extensive site, and a very extensive list of Moon front groups, some owned and others variously affiliated with the Rev. Moon organisation. In the case of only affiliation, as opposed to being owned, there nevertheless remains the serious plausibility of influence; however, Steven Hassan also says that some of these groups are not necessarily influenced, or not much.

If you read his materials, then be careful to also read all of his notes.

There's also Joel Beinin, who provides another list of names, etc. If I recall correctly, he focuses more on FreeMasonry; however, ordinary Freemasons usually or often aren't aware of what goes on in the top levels, and possibly some high level members are not particularly dishonest, malicious, .... The same as the above also applies in this case.

Read carefully and try to not be prejudicial, one way or another; only to be better informed. After all, the evil doings of high level members of any organisation, institution, etc., and which the lower level members aren't aware of, or are told to be untrue, often also affect the lower level members, as well as non-members.

Lastly, both Steven Hassan and Joel Beinin seem to have very good credentials; plus, what they say, if not entirely true, well, it is at least considerably credible, enough to merit that we be informed and on our guard, based on what these two individuals report; and, further verification certainly would be good to do, while knowing that we may be correct to be wary of the people mentionned as propagandists and other evil-doings, in these materials.

Steven Hassan's site provides a means for discussing and asking questions, so if you have any doubts, then simply send him a question, or discuss; although, should first check if the question is already answered in the existing posts of the discussion forum.

Hopefully, all or most of these links continue to be valid; haven't checked for awhile.

Steven Alan Hassan - Moon Front Groups
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/front_groups.htm

That is the long list of various front groups, in differing categories.

TEL AVIV'S INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS: The Pro-Sharon Think Tank, by Joel Beinin, a professor of history at Stanford University
http://www.activistsreader.com/articles%20folder/thinktankwatch-winep2.html

Moon Shadow: The Rev, Bush & North Korea
http://counterpunch.org/madsen01142003.html

counterpunch.org is - at least generally - a good source.

Stealth tactics, Moonies and the art of cynicism
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Binion020301/binion020301.html

In Depth - Moon and UPI: A New Weapon in an Ideology War
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/revmoon.shtml

mediachannel.org is very good, from what I understand, and based on some other articles I read from this organisation.

Unification Press International? Rev. Moon Adds United Press International to His Media Empire Sept 18 2000
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/upi-moon.shtml

A correction for a hyperlink provided in this article, for the extensive list of Moon and/or Unification Church front groups, is the above Steven Alan Hassan link to "Moon Front Groups". The file has simply been relocated, but in the same site.

Dark Side of Rev. Moon
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

Got the link from Steven Hassan's site, and this is an archive of various articles on Rev. Moon, and possibly - I forget - his organisation.

Bad Moon on the rise Sept 24 2003
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/24/moon/index_np.html

I'd say that this is a must read. The full article isn't provided, but a link to get to the complete article is.