Quotes from Presidential Candidate Badnarik

varwoche

Penultimate Amazing
Staff member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
18,218
Location
Puget Sound
For those of you who don't frequent SC, here's a summary of interesting quotes from Michael Badnarik, LP candidate for president, nutcase extraordinaire.
_________________________

About his personal guns:
I caution people that should they stand in front of my apartment door when the police decide to come to take my weapons, they will quickly discover that MY interpretation of the Second Amendment is the only one they will have to worry about.
article

About the Supreme Court:
People, please think. Please use your heads. Just because it is in print does not make it true ... just because the Supreme Court says so does not make it law. We interpret the Constitution... I don’t care what nine clowns in bathrobes say
article

About a friend's police-inflicted arm & toenail injuries:
I, Michael Badnarik, have personal knowledge of this situation, and you have my word that the story is true, and very frightening. My friend, Rhett Pease, was arrested several years ago for trespassing on his own property. (That is not a rational statement, of course, but we are dealing with the American InJustice System, here.) When he opened the door, several Sheriff's deputies violently subdued him, injuring his arm, and tearing off one of his toenails in the process.
article

About Julia Roberts, the civil war, and Abraham Lincoln:
Perhaps it would help to use personal relationships as an example. Do you remember the movie SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY? Julia Roberts is married to an abusive husband so she fakes her own death in a complicated plot to leave him. He discovers the ruse and becomes obsessed with tracking her down in order to bring her back. Why? Because he loves her? No. He tracks her down because he simply will not allow her to leave him. No sane person would support the husband in this scenario. Now imagine Abraham Lincoln as the jilted President who aggressively and savagely attacks his estranged southern states, and drags their representatives back to Washington at the point of a gun. I contend that no sane person would support the President in this scenario. In spite of all the lofty stories about Honest Abe, it is Lincoln who is most responsible for destroying the principles of the United States by forcibly holding them together under the same government.
article

About Hawaii declaring independece:
Last Saturday I became very excited when I received an eMail entitled “Hawaii Declares Independence?” that included a July 15th press release from the Kingdom of Hawai'i. I was, of course, somewhat skeptical so I did some preliminary research on the web and discovered www.hawaii-nation.org and several other references. My curiosity piqued, I decided to call Hawaii even though it was very early in the morning in the islands. I spoke to a man identified in the press release as the new Prime Minister and was told that a Declaration of (Hawaiian) Independence HAD been presented to the White House and United Nations recently. I was amazed and excited. Admittedly a little TOO excited, because I subsequently dispatched an eMail entitled “HAWAII DECLARES ITS INDEPENDENCE!”. Declaring your independence and having other agencies acknowledge that independence are two different things, and my enthusiasm caused me to blur that distinction. I realize now that it was only a small group of Hawaiian natives who made this declaration.
article

About property:
The purpose (and ONLY purpose) of our Constitution is to create a government that will protect our PROPERTY.
article

About Timothy McVeigh:
How could Timothy McVeigh's Ryder truck knock down so much of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, while doing no damage to the building across the street except for a few broken windows? Doesn't that violate the laws of physics? How could the explosion of McVeigh's truck throw bricks and debris out into the street, once again, violating the laws of physics? What ever happened to all of the evidence from the Waco disaster that was being kept for “safe keeping” in the FBI offices in the Murrah Federal Building? THINK dammit! We may not know who blew up the building, or what their motivation was, but the government's version of the truth is completely implausible.
article
About blowing up the U.N.
The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th.
article

About his new job:
Feb 17, 2003
I am very excited to report that I start a new job on Monday! After 13 months of being unemployed, followed by another 11 months of dialing the phone as a telemarketer, I have finally worked my way back into the hightech market in Austin.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030318234730/www.badnarik.org/news/009.htm


The infamous right-to-bear-nukes and first-day-in-office articles are too long; you can find them here.
 
Sad news...!
Badnarik's campaign site said:
Michael will not be running for office again
link
And so he returns to a private life of constitutional expertise and telemarketing, the ember doused.
 
Curses. The OP omitted Badnarik's right-to-bear-nukes manifesto. For posterity, formatting added:
Badnarik said:
Finally, I will respond to one question I recently received via eMail. I am asked this question on a regular basis, to wit:

I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed. Does that mean I can have a semi-automatic?
If so, then what about an automatic?
If so, what about a tank?
If so, what about a scud missle system?
If so, what about biological weapons?
If so, what about chemical weapons?
If so, what about nuclear weapons?
Is there a line and if so where is it?


This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defense. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

This answer will not satisfy many people (such as Rosie O'Donnell or Diane Feinstein) because a "clear and present danger", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It depends on WHO has extracted the revolver from the holster, and how much of a threat the person doing the evaluation feels at the moment. I think it would be GREAT to live next door to a neighbor with a functioning army tank, however I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability. It is very much like sexual harassment. I am pleased to report that there are still women in my circle of friends to whom I can say, "Hey there, Gorgeous! C'mere and give me a hug and a kiss." There are others - many of whom I knew in California - who would interpret that remark as grounds for a lawsuit. What we fail to remember in today's society is that everyone is DIFFERENT, and every situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. One size does NOT fit all, which is why is it immoral (and unconstitutional) to establish uniform rules against "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", and "cop killer bullets". It is interesting to note that it is an "assault rifle" if I am holding it, and an "anti-assault rifle" if I hand it to a police officer. And what the heck is a "cop killer bullet", anyway? A person with a 22 caliber target pistol that is sufficiently close to his/her target can kill anyone - whether or not they are wearing a badge. Therefore terminology such as these are created by those who wish to convert your rights into privileges by playing on the emotions of the uneducated.

In the implausible event that anyone is still uncertain what my position is on the Second Amendment, I hold that all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they infringe significantly on your RIGHT to self defense. Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive ANYONE of ANY WEAPON, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment. MY idea of "Homeland Security" is for all 285 million Americans to purchase a gun if they don't already have one. If our country is exposed to a terrorist threat - I will hold a press conference and tell you how you can help to suppress the attack.
 
About the Supreme Court:
People, please think. Please use your heads. Just because it is in print does not make it true ... just because the Supreme Court says so does not make it law. We interpret the Constitution... I don’t care what nine clowns in bathrobes say

We have a problem. According to Shanek, no one interprets the Constitution because the meaning of the SUPREME LAW is made crystal clear by the document itself.

So either Badnarik or Shanek is not a real Libertarian.
 
I for one look forward the day when every American will be able to carry their own personal nuclear weapon in their holster.

The first requirement is to lift the ban on steroids, so that people will be strong enough to wear the holster and carry the weight of the weapon.

DR
 
The first requirement is to lift the ban on steroids, so that people will be strong enough to wear the holster and carry the weight of the weapon.

DR

Nah, they should be able to miniaturize them so that anyone can carry them comfortably. They might only be powerful enough to take out a few acres, but that should be enough for civilians, unless they are hunters.
 
The first requirement is to lift the ban on steroids, so that people will be strong enough to wear the holster and carry the weight of the weapon.
DR
Personally I think drinking water throughout the USA should be dosed with Viagra, as that would take a lot of heat out of the gun debate.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gun ownership as long as responsible. Just seems to me that some like Badnarik tend to get all obsessive and weird about it, and that adding Viagra to their drinking water might help relieve their emotional reasons for getting so uptight.

Mind you, the consequent need to carry large weights might mean that the steroid ban would have to be lifted, and the consequent wide-scale usage of steroids might actually then mean the Viagra is ...... wasted (shrinking balls etc.), but hey.
 
Nah, they should be able to miniaturize them so that anyone can carry them comfortably. They might only be powerful enough to take out a few acres, but that should be enough for civilians, unless they are hunters.
Nuclear hand grenades?
 
I for one look forward the day when every American will be able to carry their own personal nuclear weapon in their holster.
"Doomsday device? Ahh, now the ball's in Farnsworth's court! I suppose I could part with one and still be feared."
 
You know, I have never understood certain people's obsessive fascination with people who they say are so completely inconsequential. I don't really care about Badnirik - but, apparently, you very much do. Why exactly is that? Why this fascination with somebody who is nobody, nothing and nowhere? Or libertarians in general - if they are so beneath contempt, why is it some people seem obsessed with their contempt for them?
 
You know, I have never understood certain people's obsessive fascination with people who they say are so completely inconsequential. I don't really care about Badnirik - but, apparently, you very much do. Why exactly is that? Why this fascination with somebody who is nobody, nothing and nowhere? Or libertarians in general - if they are so beneath contempt, why is it some people seem obsessed with their contempt for them?

Because they are so very funny indeed.


I have posted about, and laugh at (and am appalled by) Fred Phelps, but I am under no illusion that he is of any consequence whatsoever. Much like the Libertarian Party.
 
I was disillusioned like never before when I saw the Libertarian Party convention a few years back on C-SPAN.

OK, maybe when I found out the truth about Santa Claus!
 

Back
Top Bottom