EXCLUSIVE: Exclusive ATSNN Interview With 2004 Presidential Candidate Charles Jay.

ATSNN is pleased to present an exclusive interview with 2004 U.S Presidential candidate Charles Jay, of the Personal Choice Party. ATSNN wishes to thank Charles Jay for the oportunity to put these question to him and also the members of abovetopsecret.com for submitting their questions.
CHARLES JAY, Personal Choice Party candidate for president, has a colorful and unconventional background. He spent many years in the professional boxing industry, hosted nationally-syndicated sports radio programs, worked in television broadcasting for such entities as USA Network, Prime Network and Sunshine Network, and served as a casino marketing consultant.

Mr. Jay has also had a prolific career as a writer. He was a casino gaming columnist for such publications as Casino Player, The Gambler and Sports Form, but he is probably best known as one of the world's most respected boxing journalists, and perhaps the nation's leading authority on boxing reform. His two critically-acclaimed electronic books - "Operation Cleanup - A Blueprint for Boxing Reform" and "Operation Cleanup 2 � Unfinished Business", represent arguably the most comprehensive and in-depth examination of the boxing industry ever put into publication. And his third book, "Body Shots: Outside the Ring and Inside the World of Pro Boxing", currently being posted on a chapter-by-chapter basis, is drawing even more raves. He was the recipient of the 2003 "Dignity" Award, in the category of "Best Sports Writer", as bestowed by the Retired Boxers Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to rendering assistance to ex-fighters in need. In an official letter of notification, the RBF referred to "the courage you have demonstrated in your writing and the integrity that is apparent in all of your journalistic pieces."

His involvement with the review of public agencies and legislative issues surrounding boxing, and his efforts to "defend the right to play" in the gambling industry, introduced Mr. Jay to the world of politics. He helped run the city council campaign of the Libertarian Party's Elkhart County (IN) chair, Rick Bowen, in 2003, and announced his candidacy for the Libertarian vice-presidential nomination in January of 2004. In April of 2004 he withdrew from the VP race, and a month later accepted the presidential nomination of the upstart Personal Choice Party. The nomination secured him ballot access in the state of Utah.

Mr. Jay is 43 years old and a graduate of the University of Miami (FL). A native of Newark, N.J. who has been a resident of Mississippi and Florida, he now lives in Elkhart, IN. He is currently president of Total Action Inc., president of the International Brotherhood of Prizefighters, co-founder and CEO of CasinoSport Multimedia, chairman of the Boxing Oversight Task Force, and editor-in-chief of TheSweetScience.com, an online boxing magazine.

To learn more about Charles Jay you can visit his site www.charlesjay.com...



ATSNN: Seekerof asks, WHAT DOES THE PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY REPRESENT WHEN APPLIED TO THE 'ISSUES'?

Charles Jay: It means that individuals have the right to make more personal choices about their own lives. It means individuals should have the right to choose how much of their hard-earned money they get to keep. It means that consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever kind of relationship they want, to whatever degree, without the infringement of government. It means people have the right to bear arms for the purposes of protecting themselves, from others or from government itself, without limitation. It means everyone is lord and master over their own body, which in turn means that if someone wants to ingest something he or she knows is harmful, it is a personal choice. It means that if I want to give money to the homeless, or to the poor, or to foreign countries, or toward someone's else's health insurance or retirement plan, that is my choice. But it's also my choice not to do it. Government should not force it upon me.

If you want to watch pornography, that's your personal choice. If you want to listen to Howard Stern, that's your personal choice. If you want to smoke eight packs of cigarettes a day until you die, that's your personal choice. If you want to blow $30,000 playing roulette, that is your personal choice. Everyone has the right to his/her own personal choices, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, or impose those choices upon others, and as long as the individual is fully prepared to take responsibility for those choices. Just as important as standing up for your own right to make decisions about your life is that you respect the right of each and every individual to do the same. If you examine it carefully, you'll find that is easier said than done; to me, it's a true test of patriotism. I'm looking for people who pass that test.



ATSNN: AND ALSO, BEING THAT YOU WERE NOMINATED FOR/AS VICE PRESIDENT CANDIDATE WITHIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY THIS YEAR, EXACTLY WHY DID YOU WITHDRAW AND ARE NOW RUNNING UNDER THE PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY?

Charles Jay: It's important to remember that 13 months ago, getting involved as a political candidate was the furthest thing from my mind. So when I made the decision to explore running for the VP nomination, there was quite a lot to research and learn. I announced my candidacy in January, then a flurry of new business activity came before me, and I got a slow start out of the box. I did not have the opportunity to get around to all the state conventions, and therefore didn't a chance to ingratiate myself to the various delegates, as other people had done. Yet, I was enjoying what I was doing, considered it a great exercise in civic duty, and felt there was a useful message to convey. So I started to think about options, to facilitate carrying things through to November.

Then the opportunity to apply for a spot on the Showtime reality program "The American Candidate" presented itself. My feeling was that the show's effect could be revolutionary, and that it would afford the chance to reach a lot of people, potentially much more than the second spot on the LP ticket could. The only problem was, the contestants were not going to be selected until the first week of June, and the LP convention was the week before. I simply could not put the party in a position where, in the event I received a nomination, I might turn it down the next week. Nor would I put the TV show in a position where I could be among those under consideration, only to make myself ineligible all of a sudden. Then it was time to take several factors into consideration:

• That my late start would work against me in seeking the LP nomination.
  
• That there were rumors about Michael Badnarik being inserted into the #2
  spot on the ticket..
  
• That the TV show would be a unique shot at exposure.
  
• That I would like to run on my own platform, not someone else's.
  
• That it is indeed extremely difficult to raise money for a
  vice-presidential run.
  
• That, frankly, as someone from outside this "world", I needed some time to
  develop a campaign.
  

Ultimately I informed my state chair, and the other VP candidates, that I was going to withdraw from the race. I also told them why. There appeared to be a complete understanding of my rationale.

It was not till later that I found out the selection process for the "American Candidate" was something of a sham. The show's premise was that the search was on for people who were more or less ordinary citizens. But instead they were out recruiting political professionals who weren't even applicants, and who in fact had missed the deadline. It occurred to me that this show was going to have no impact at all (indeed, there has been no buzz whatsoever about it). So it became something of no importance to me, even before the selections were announced.

I had acquainted myself with the Personal Choice Party some months before. I liked its approach. I liked the way the message was presented. I asked the party's moderator, Ken Larsen, if there was going to be a presidential candidate. He said yes, that Ralph Nader was considering coming to the convention and that Congressman Ron Paul had consented to having his name placed on the ballot. I asked him to put my name on the ballot also. I went to the convention in Salt Lake City, made my presentation to the members, and won the nomination.

Considering everything, it was absolutely the right decision. I like to think the party feels it made a good decision too. Through our presidential ticket, there has been a lot of interest created throughout the country. And on a personal level, it's allowed me to establish myself a little bit more as an entity.



ATSNN: AND AGAIN, YOUR VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS AN EX-PORN STAR. WILL THIS HAVE ANY NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE TYPE INFLUENCES IN YOUR ABILITY TO BE TAKEN SERIOUS AS A NATIONAL CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE?

Charles Jay: For the sake of your readers, let's clarify that you're talking about Marilyn Chambers, one of the legendary figures in the adult film industry. I see Marilyn's effect as being very positive, because she brings attention to the ticket. I am overwhelmed with requests for campaign buttons and other materials. Just the other day someone wrote me, "Can I have a campaign button and a naked picture of your running mate?" I asked him if he would settle for just a campaign button.

I'm going to tell you another thing that you may not want to believe - whether or not it was her primary motivation, there is no candidate in this race who has done more to advance the First Amendment right of free speech than Marilyn Chambers. In the year 2004, adults can buy more, see more, hear more, do more, say more, partly due to her efforts and participation in an industry that was considered much more risque 35 or so years ago but is practically mainstream today. From that perspective, she is a strong symbolic presence.

Am I worried about not being taken seriously? Well, I have a hard time taking candidates seriously when they seem dedicated to putting us further and further into a deficit hole, and expanding the national debt; when they refuse to acknowledge that in its present form, Social Security and Medicare are going to damage future generations beyond repair; when they will not recognize same-sex couples as individuals who have rights; when they feel reverse discrimination is a second wrong that makes a right; when they feel they somehow have a birthright to spending my money, and that of other taxpayers, without any sense of responsibility.

The people I'm interested in reaching are those who are willing to take a look at issues. philosophies, and policies with some degree of diligence. And I'm confident that as they do, they'll see this as a campaign of substance.



ATSNN: BOUT TIME ASKS, GIVEN YOUR POSITION ON THE IRAQ WAR, WHAT TIMELINE WOULD BE APPLIED TO IT IN YOUR PRESIDENCY & WHAT WOULD BE THE MILESTONES IT WOULD BE COMPRISED OF?

Charles Jay: We need to bring our troops home as soon as possible. The opposing argument is that if we pull out anytime soon, we are going to leave things in a state of chaos. But almost any scenario is going to leave things in a state of chaos, so what we have to do is implement the plan that is going to have the least cost in terms of American lives. We have heard a claim by Prime Minister Allawi that there will be 145,000 troops trained in Iraq by January. We are told that there will be elections in Iraq on January 31. Immediately afterward, we should be getting our troops out of Iraq and doing it quickly. The United States has provided the tools and opportunity for the Iraqi people to fight for their own freedom. Now it's time to find out how bad they want it.

My administration would undertake that course of action no matter what pledges were made by President Bush. We are there. It is wrong. It is not authorized by the Constitution. It is based on false pretenses. It smacks of profiteering. It is part and parcel of our aggressive philosophy that has not only antagonized other countries around the world, but produces more terrorism, rather than thwarting it.



ATSNN: ENRONOUTRUNHOMERUN ASKS, DOES NOT THE VERY NAME OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT SUGGEST THAT YOUR STANCE ON THE KEY ISSUES IS SOMEWHAT �IFFY?� HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND THE TITLE OF YOUR PARTY TO THOSE AT THE POLLS ON ELECTION DAY, ASSUMING THEY WERE WITHOUT A FAIR UNDERSTANDING OF ITS OBLIGATIONS?

Charles Jay: I'm not sure the first part of your question was framed in such a way as to make it clear. I don't know what is "iffy" or ambiguous about the name "Personal Choice". We are for more personal choice - period. I would think most people understand exactly what that means, as it applies to their own lives. In and of themselves, the names "Democrat", "Republican", "Green", or "Libertarian" are not as readily understandable to the average voter.

Having said that, I really don't see the need to 'defend' the name of the party to its 'obligations'. In fact, I'm not sure what those 'obligations' would entail.



ATSNN: AND ALSO, IS IT A CHALLENGE HAVING THE SAME PARTY INITIALS AS A HARDCORE DRUG THAT YOUR PARTY WOULD INTEND TO LEGALIZE? DO YOU FIRMLY BELIEVE LEGALIZING ALL DRUGS WOULD NOT EVENTUALLY LEAD TO DISORDER? WHY SHOULD YOU DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF THE ADDICTED?

Charles Jay: The answer to that first question is yes - there would seem to be an odd confusion about that. I'm not sure that was the intention behind the acronym.

Would legalizing drugs lead to disorder? In asking that question, are you assuming there's "order" now? Seriously, do you think there is something about the illegality of drugs that prevents those who really want them from having them? The "War on Drugs" is really a grand generalization - there are in fact many wars within that war. There is a war on drug users; a war on drug dealers; a war on innocent citizens who have nothing to do with dealing drugs; a war using drugs that has actually created criminals out of law enforcement officers. I lived in the Miami area for many years, so I witnessed a lot of it. Legalization would likely lead to less disorder, since "turf wars" and the violence that accompanies them would probably become a thing of the past. That kind of thinking is steeped in logic, since when you drive a black market into obsolescence, you will usually see a reduction in violent crimes. Even so, to buttress that argument, I think we need to really put together a model of what this "post-Drug War" society would look like. I say that referencing the analogy that has always been drawn with alcohol prohibition. Unlike the booze business, in which there were established channels of distribution before prohibition, which simply re-established themselves after repeal, the established channels of distribution in the drug industry are what we see now - the illicit ones. And the manufacture of chemical drugs largely takes place outside of the U.S. Would we be dealing with drugs that are synthetic? Produced in the U.S.? Would they beat the prices on the black market today? Would the pharmaceutical companies get into the act? Would the product be retailed in pharmacies? Would there be government control and taxation? There are a lot of variables, and they are important, because the ultimate objective would be to curb the violence that occurs as a result of illegal drug dealing and the government's enforcement of anti-drug laws.

In terms of the actual consumption of drugs, I defend the rights of people to make personal choices regarding their lives, even if those personal choices wind up doing them harm. I also believe they need to take full responsibility for those personal choices. That means if you commit violent or harmful acts against others that are directly related to your intake of drugs, I'm going to bring the hammer down on you. It also means that if you develop the addiction of drug dependency - a disease - you need to be motivated to seek a cure for that disease, through whatever private means possible. I don't think it is necessarily the government's responsibility to pick up that tab.

Winning a drug war doesn't mean locking up as many users as possible, because rehabilitation goes a lot farther than incarceration. If there is indeed a drug war worth fighting, it's one where the goal is not to sharply reduce the SUPPLY of drugs, but to reduce the DEMAND for them.



ATSNN: IN ADDITION, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SUPREME COURT�S RECENT DECISION TO SIDE-STEP THE ISSUE OF MUSIC AND MOVIE PIRACY? DOES IT SHOW A WEAKNESS OR A DESIRE FOR RESOLVE?

Charles Jay: Let me make this clear - as someone who is involved with writing and publishing, not to mention the world of television and radio, and therefore produces "intellectual property", I am sensitive to this issue. When someone commits a theft or misappropriation of intellectual property, whether it is for commercial gain or for the express purpose of avoiding paying for goods and/or services, it is a violation of rights. As such, it is not what I would consider a valid personal choice.

At the same time, I know the Supreme Court, in refusing to hear the case, was exhibiting an overriding concern for the privacy of individuals, and I see that as legitimate. That one's identity can be compromised through a subpoena process that is not subject to judicial review goes beyond the matter of music piracy. It can gravitate into other areas, and it's on that basis that I would be worried about the potential ramifications for the constitutional rights of Americans. Within this context, perhaps this offers an explanation as to why the Bush administration, which brought us the Patriot Act, is on the side of the recording industry in this one - at the highest levels of government there is little concern for the privacy of individuals, particularly as it involves transactions over the internet.

Remember also, from what I understand, the recording industry still retains certain legal options. They can go through a more lengthy process to find out who the file-swappers are, and file lawsuits against them. They are perfectly entitled to go down that road, and at that point, maybe such action will serve as a deterrent.



ATSNN: AND AGAIN, THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WILL LIKELY BE OVER BY THE TIME YOU GET A CHANCE TO READ AND RESPOND TO THESE QUESTIONS. WHAT DO YOU THINK WERE KERRY AND BUSH�S WEAK POINTS? THEIR STRONG POINTS? WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY?

Charles Jay: First of all, as I am answering these questions I am coming off the first political debate of my life, with opponents who have all had years of experience, so I can tell you that it is a rather difficult thing to do effectively.

Bush seems very ill at ease when he's in a setting he doesn't control. Interestingly, if you look at documentaries about his life, he looked much more natural in speaking on camera before he decided to run for president. Maybe that's because you've always got to be careful about what you say. But he has the look and sound of someone who is programmed, but has forgotten the program.

I noticed that there was a certain strength to the way he was able to continue hammering away at an area where Kerry is weak. But he is so inarticulate that he fails to take full advantage of it. And he offers his own contradictions. He'll tell you how many times Kerry voted to raise taxes, how many times he voted against lowering taxes, but then, when Kerry will bring up some malfunctioning government program, Bush shoots back with how many billions of dollars he's thrown at it.

I will echo the general feeling that Kerry has managed to make himself look more presidential in the debates, something that was not so evident before. But Kerry is being disingenuous when he talks about universal health care and other social programs, and avoids explaining how these things are going to be paid for without taxing American citizens further into the abyss. I noticed that about the Greens and Socialists in the debate I was in. A lot of people will tell you how good the meal is going to be, but no one wants to tell you about the ulcers you'll develop afterward.

What would I do differently from Bush or Kerry? Well, you can actually read about it. I put together my own responses to the questions in the first debate, and superimposed them into the debate transcript. All of it can be found at www.charlesjay.com....



ATSNN: AND FINALLY, THE JEWISH VOTERS IN FLORIDA ARE, AT BEST, HESITANT. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THEM TO GAIN YOUR VOTE?

Charles Jay: I'll tell them that we will grow the economy by easing the tax and regulatory burden on small businesses, which enables them to sustain an operation, hire employees, and eventually thrive. We would eliminate the federal income tax, which obviously will put an end to the double taxation of dividends. As far as seniors are concerned, we would reform Social Security in such a way that their own benefits would be secure, and give them the piece of mind of knowing that their children and grandchildren are not going to be waylaid by a system that is going broke, because we must reinvent the process by which Americans provide for their own retirement. In other words, I would tell them the same thing I would tell anyone else.

We are going to continue to be a friend to Israel, but that does not necessarily preclude us from being a friend to other nations. I think everyone's rights in the region deserve to be respected. What I will NOT tell them is that the United States is going to continue to press an aggressive, assertive military presence in the Middle East, because it provokes terrorism, and is otherwise outside of what our role in the world should be.

So I guess, in so many words, I'll tailor a message for those people, while at the same time being brutally honest with them. It is not consistent with my philosophy to construct policies or programs that are designed to benefit one ethnic or religious group over another.



ATSNN: ELEVATEDONE ASKS, HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THE SITUATION WITH NORTH KOREA AND IT'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM ?

Charles Jay: Well, if it were a choice of having bi-lateral talks or multi-lateral talks, I would think multi-lateral talks are the wiser, more judicious course of action, because we have to recognize that there are other countries who have equity in the situation as well and they deserve to be participants in negotiations.

But let me take you through my own train of thought. If Bush's policy is that we must attack countries who appear to pose an "imminent threat" and possess "weapons of mass destruction", wouldn't North Korea fit into that category? Yet we don't attack. Why? Precisely BECAUSE they have WMD's. The North Korean position is that its nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Well, if that's the case, then the weapons have served their purpose, have they not?

North Korea has not attacked the U.S., nor is there any reason to believe it would be foolish enough to do so. Considering we are the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country, and our attitude seems to be that we are the only ones (in addition to our allies) entitled to have those weapons, don't WE pose much more of an imminent threat to THEM, and wouldn't that, in and of itself, supply enough justification for them to develop weapons to defend themselves?

It all ties in to the official policy of the United States, articulated by President Bush time and again, that we are an "offensive" nation, and that somehow God wants us to force democracy on others. Is it any wonder that non-democracies would feel the need to be in a defensive posture?



ATSNN: ELEVATEDONE AND DGTEMPE ASK, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION IN REGARDS WITH THE TIGHTENING OF SECURITY OF OUR BORDERS? HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Charles Jay: For immigrants who make the personal choice to come to America for the opportunity to improve the quality of life for themselves and their families, I welcome them with open arms. And inasmuch as I suspect they will become workers and consumers, acting within the law, everyone else should welcome them too. At the same time, we need to know who these people are. We're in a day and age when our national borders need to be defended more than ever, and I would have to dedicate myself to doing that more efficiently than anyone ever has.

Let me make it clear, however, that it's about keeping criminals out of here, not immigrants, and not just because they are Arabs and Muslims. While we're at it, let me say something about undocumented immigrants - I do favor amnesty, for those who are working and productive, and we should take steps to make them citizens, but we're going to have to establish that from this day on, immigrants have to come into this country the right way. And on an overall basis, immigrants must not be eligible for any kind of government entitlement programs for a minimum of five years. Immigration policy can not be used to facilitate the expansion of the welfare state, which my administration would substantially reduce anyway.



ATSNN: OFF_THE_STREET ASKS, I SEE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER BETWEEN YOUR PLATFORM AND THAT OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. WHY ARE YOU RUNNING SEPARATELY?

Charles Jay: Primarily, because it was my personal choice to do so, and didn't see any reason not to. While it may be true that our party would appear to be a philosophical "brother" of the Libertarian Party, my platform is not designed with the intention of being similar to that of the LP, but because it represents what I think is the right thing to do, the right way to view things, the right way to govern.

Yes, we both promote individual rights, liberty, freedom of choice, independence. But the more appropriate question might be, why would anyone be any different? Why doesn't everybody have that same philosophical foundation? Why don't Democrats, Republicans, Greens feel people have the right to make more decisions about their own lives? Is there something inherently wrong with that philosophy? If there is, I'd like to hear it.

That having been said, I think elections are less about parties and ideologies than about the candidates themselves. The specifics of my platform are there for the benefit of the people who ask me about it; some do, some don't. Mostly, they're concerned about the level of trust they can have in you and how far-reaching and ambitious your vision is.

But as long as we're talking about it, there are in fact very real differences between our platforms. I know that Libertarians would abolish a wide range of federal agencies, and so would I. But I would feel compelled to reinvent some of those agencies, rather than junk them. The Department of Education is one example. I am interested in being helpful in delivering the tools of education, while staying away from delivering the content of that education itself.

I look upon a national consumption tax as something that can fill some of the vacuum left after I help eliminate the personal income tax, accompanied by massive cuts in government spending. That's just based on a realistic view of the national budget. Of course, that might mean we keep a scaled-down Internal Revenue Service around, not to collect income taxes and harass individuals but instead to administer the consumption tax.

One place I would increase the budget is in the area of veterans affairs, because that is one group of public servants we owe something to and who have not been treated like human beings. They are part of an important constitutional function of the military - national defense - and they can not be neglected. As I pointed out before, I look at the War on Drugs as a war on many fronts, and know that we need to deal with all those fronts; we need more than one specific solution.

I probably place a stronger emphasis on the so-called "touchy" issues - things like drugs, prostitution, adult entertainment, and of course, gambling, something I feel can be used to fulfill a vital function of my program, which I hope to expand upon later. Libertarians in recent years have had a tendency to shy away from those issues because they figure it makes candidates look less viable.

The Libertarian platform opposes anti-trust laws. I know better. From my own experiences in business and through investigating professional boxing for my three books, I have seen the effects of restraints of trade and other anti-competitive practices, and I know that the artificial restriction of competition almost never does anything to benefit the consumer. In fact, just the opposite. And it is usually tied into some kind of corruption, often among public officials. No - anti-trust laws are the consumer's friend. It's just a matter of applying them wisely.

Also, the Libertarians are against insider trading laws. I don't see that practice as something harmless. When somebody uses inside information, not available to others, for his own self-enrichment, there are invariably going to be some people who lose as a result. It also can be used to manipulate the market, and not only is that artificial, it's not in the public interest.

I am naturally an advocate of limited government, but under my administration I would not hesitate to consider utilizing a government solution if (a) there is very little or no downside; (b) there is no intrusion on individual liberty; (c) there is no unfunded mandate to the states; and (d) there is no additional coercive expense to the taxpayer.

Now, let's talk about the subject of "approach". It is important to point out that there is no Personal Choice Party "platform", per se, meaning that some of the planks I described above may in fact not be consistent with what the majority of Personal Choice Party members think. But the party allows for candidates to construct their own individual platforms. I see that as a major plus. Libertarians are much more consensus-oriented. With very few exceptions, there is more or less a requirement to agree with them on everything that is policy-related. When I was in the party, I can't tell you how many times I expressed an opinion on an issue, and was told, "Well then, you can't be a Libertarian." I don't feel the need to take an issue and fit it into a libertarian "box"; my approach is that if common sense dictates it, I will expand the box, or move outside of it.

Don't get me wrong, because I think Libertarians are good people who really "get it" when it comes to the issues, but there is a tendency to exist for the sake of arguing. What I liked about the Personal Choice Party's approach is that it was very much like my own - that is, it is founded not on seeking out something to disagree with somebody on, but finding an area where we agree and figuring out how we can cooperate. This is part of the new kind of politics I talk about - I call it "anti-politics" because it is not based on pure partisanship but on building strength behind causes that reflect mutual interest. I think it's a great blueprint for governing as well.

Offhand, I would say that the approach of most Libertarian candidates I know is more ideological, academic, even professorial than my own. I'm more conversational in the way I go about this. I'm more comfortable talking WITH people, not talking AT them. That's why I'm better in one-on-one situations than speeches. I have a tendency to think a little more like an activist. I don't pose. I like to take the fight to the opposition - within this context, the "opposition" meaning corrupt and inept public officials. I am much more of an "in your face" type of guy, and I will play hardball, because that's the only language a lot of politicians seem to understand. At the same time, I am one of those people who is always willing to be convinced, if you have an argument that makes sense. I'll give you an example. At the debate I just went to, one of the socialist candidates mentioned that the answer to the health care dilemma was to take the profit motive out of medicine. Well, you're not going to do that for all doctors, and all hospitals, but how about some of them? Is that maybe a proposition that needs to be explored? And so how do you plug that into a situation that is feasible? Is there at least a partial solution in there somewhere, and how could various political groups cooperate toward finding that solution?

I don't exactly feel it is incumbent upon me to complain about being left out of the debates. I'm from the school where I'd rather create my own opportunities in that regard. We have exhibited more commitment, I think, in the area of freedom of speech than the Libertarian Party. When I was at the Personal Choice Party convention, I had made my presentation speech in pursuit of the nomination, then someone came literally out of the audience and ran as a write-in candidate. That's democracy. The Libertarian Party, in the 47th month of a 48-month election cycle, sent a communiqu� that suddenly outlined a number of criteria for candidates to qualify for the debate at the convention. They wanted to know how much money the candidates raised, how much they spent, how much media they had received, how many state conventions they had attended, etc., and then, since there was no provision for it in the party's Constitution, the Convention Organizing Committee was going to make the arbitrary decision as to who was going to be included in the debate. In other words, they were applying essentially the same criteria Republicans and Democrats might apply to them when determining inclusion - or exclusion, as it were - in the debates, and they were doing it very late in the game. Understand also, that there were no binding primaries, so theoretically, all seven candidates who went to the convention went in with the same number of committed delegates. They also imposed a "dress code". And it was funny - one of the first Libertarian state chairs I ever talked to told me he was going to keep one of the presidential candidates off hisstate's primary ballot because "he didn't bother wearing a suit to our convention". Sure enough, that's exactly what he did.

The bottom line is, the process that was proposed, seemingly in ad hoc fashion, whittled the field down to three from the original seven. And none of the three candidates who were in the debate seemed to complain about it. I started hearing a lot about who the "serious" candidates were. Well, maybe the Republicans and Democrats don't consider candidates to be "serious" when they can't crack one-half of one percent of the vote in the previous election? See what I'm getting at?

One of the reasons for the shutout at the convention was that it was being televised on C-SPAN and they wanted to keep the more "erratic" types out. So if the party gets more and more attention, right alongside the "majors", what principles go out the window next because, in the words of Geoffrey Neale, the LP chairman, "We want America to take us seriously"? To me, you've lost all of your moral authority to complain about Republicans and Democrats keeping you out of the debates if you have, in effect, done the same thing to your own. And isn't it interesting that the Citizens' Debate Commission, which is supposed to be running "open debates", has shut certain parties out of their events? That's somewhat hypocritical, isn't it?

I guess it's what you call "Freedom of Speech - that is, if you qualify".

I think one of the big problems with third-party movements these days is that they're looking to get from Point A to Point Z right away. Operating on the assumption that we're not going to be elected this year, there is a distinction to be drawn between the kind of change we would like to see Congress implement over the next four years and the kind of change we would implement if elected. It's the difference between incremental change and sweeping change. Yes, we do want sweeping change, but we have to allow for the fact that going from Point A to Point B, Point C, etc. is a step in the right direction, and that it will make it easier to get to Point Z down the road, without it being as much of a culture shock. At the recent Multi-Party debate, I was talking about "government", and David Cobb, the presidential candidate of the Green Party, was saying, "We're talking about government as if it were an abstract thing. WE (meaning the people) can be the government." Yes, David, that's true, but we aren't NOW. We need to recognize the way things are, while continuing to work toward nudging people over to our idea of what SHOULD be. It's not an easy thing to do - to be able to communicate the ideal while simultaneously shifting public opinion gradually. But the third-party movements able to do that best are the ones that are going to gain a foothold.

There are some influential people within the Libertarian Party who think part of their solution is for candidates to integrate themselves into a formula that, in their view, makes them more "electable". That represents their idea of what a professional politician looks like, acts like, and sounds like. I am not interested in being a watered-down Libertarian, a quasi-Republican or quasi-Democrat. If you run like that, you're always going to lose to the candidate - and the machine - that has more money and more organization. My objective is not to fit into a formula that seems to already exist, but to CHANGE that formula, or take steps toward achieving that end. And if you notice, as a country we're moving slowly but surely in that direction. I go back far enough to where I remember Social Security and the income tax as "third rail" issues, that politicians didn't want to touch. Now you will hear candidates from the two major parties campaigning on reform of both Social Security and the tax system. The subject of legalizing marijuana is not so far out of the mainstream. The internet is spawning more independence on the part of people, especially in the way they get their news, opinion and commentary. The votes are there. The question is, how are we packaging ourselves?

Maybe I'm also different in the respect that experience has taught me I don't necessarily have to be elected to "win" in some way. If I can convince someone to become more active in their community; if I can help people think about taking more responsibility for themselves; if I can be successful in urging more people to go to the polls as a way of eventually affecting change, I can claim victory on some level.

I am not committed to the idea that this has to end on November 2nd. I've seen this less as a four or five-month campaign but more like a four-year proposition. There is so much that can be done over the next four years, and I can get an early start on it if I ultimately choose to move in that direction. If there are Libertarians out there who want to join in that kind of effort, that's fine. But it must be clearly understood - I come to the table with my own independent mindset.



ATSNN: LADYV ASKS, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON ISSUES SUCH AS ANIMAL WELFARE AND OUR ENVIRONMENT?

Charles Jay: Animal welfare is a sticky issue for me, and there is no easy approach. I am a genuine lover of animals, so the subject of animal abuse hits close to my emotions. The panel was asked about this at the Multi-Party Debate and I wondered out loud about laboratory mice and whether the lives of one species of animal were worth more than other species. We have to balance this with the kind of advances that have been made in the area of medical research using laboratory animals. There has been a benefit to mankind. I'm not going to sit here and tell you about the exploitation of animals that are used in entertainment events, such as rodeos and dog shows, because I don't really know enough about it. But I do think the anti-cruelty laws should be enforced better on the local level, and that abusers need to be punished, because animals have rights.

What's so dangerous about federal environmental policy is that this government is a prolific polluter, and uses environmental issues as a political football through which to grant favors in exchange for money. First, take a look at what happened with that large parcel of land the Air Force sold to a developer in Colorado. Asbestos was discovered in the soil, which called for a cleanup, but the Pentagon turned around and absolutely abdicated any responsibility for it whatsoever. And the Environmental Protection Agency has taken a "hands-off" attitude toward investigating the matter. So the developers are left picking up the tab for something that was not their creation, while the government of the United States skates away scot-free. And some of the land hasn't even been sold yet, which means the hazard is still in the soil. Now, if someone develops lung disease and dies as a result of the government's pollution of the land, who does the family see about that? If George W. Bush neglected to take any action over it, how could one avoid making him an accessory to a wrongful death, perhaps in both a civil and criminal sense? is it "God's will" that people be contaminated by the President's negligence?

Now take a look at what the Clean Air Act allows politicians to do. There is a division between physical plants that were built before 1970 and after 1970. The companies with older plants can continue to pollute at pre-1970 levels, unless they make improvements to the plant that equal or exceed 20% of the plant's value. And they're regulated by the states. Meanwhile, the newer plants have a multitude of new regulations to deal with, administered by the federal government. So what happens is that new entrants into an industry automatically are at a disadvantage, because it costs more for them to comply with the new and additional federal regulations. It's sort of a built-in way to protect incumbent companies against new entrants, while those companies fill the campaign war chests of the legislators responsible for enforcing the laws.

The environment is important for people concerned with personal choice, because if you pollute and it reaches into my space, you are violating my rights. So we probably need a reinvention of the EPA, in order to give it more of a private character, less available to be manipulated by the Congress, and more responsible to the consumer. We need to sell off a great deal of government-owned land, because private interests will always preserve it better. It just makes sense - if you live on property that is your own, rather than property that is owned by someone else, you are naturally going to take better care of it.

One environmental issue that is always a subject of discussion involves emissions, and our dependence on various forms of energy. There is no question that we need to severely reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not just for the sake of the environment but also because it has national security ramifications. Face it, would we be such an active participant in the Middle East if we didn't need the oil that came out of there? Would we have such an interest in Iraq? I think not. Alternative forms of renewable energy are critical. Problem is, a president can not issue an order that people buy hybrid vehicles, and I don't believe in granting welfare to companies or industries. But that's not to say I couldn't use the "bully pulpit", as it were, and make certain suggestions. The free market will be the ultimate determinant. Hybrid cars are available now. The Toyota Prius has been very successful, and Ford is rolling out a hybrid SUV right now. Hydrogen cars are coming sooner or later. if the consumer votes with his or her wallet, and demonstrates that the demand is there, the market will invariably move there as well, especially under my administration, since I'm not going to subsidize the automobile or oil industries. Then you will start to see a shift. And over the course of time, that could change the whole ballgame.



ATSNN: MIRTHFUL ME ASKS YOU AND YOUR RUNNING MATE ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE MAINSTREAM OF POLITICS, WOULD YOU MAKE YOUR SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTED OFFICES FROM THE SAME CLOTH? DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET A PARTISAN CONGRESS TO CONFIRM THOSE APPOINTMENTS?

Charles Jay: To answer your first question, I envision we would be looking for people who understand the idea of "thinking outside the box". We need new solutions to both old and new problems. And inasmuch as there would be less in the way of government agencies under my administration, there would be less appointed offices to worry about. I don't want traditional bureaucrats. I want people who are advocates of limited government. I imagine that I would populate my cabinet and my key appointed positions with members of the Personal Choice and Libertarian parties.

Would I get confirmations from Congress? If I won an electoral vote, you know I would be coming in with some strength. And I would make it very clear that under my philosophy, I would rather find something on which to agree with you than disagree with you. In that way, I can be the best friend to each and every one of them when it came down to getting my support on certain issues. There's another side to that - if they want, I can exercise my veto power and make life more difficult for all of them. Remember - I'm in favor of less legislation anyway. I think everyone will find co-existence much easier. Under my administration, almost all members of Congress can come away with at least half a loaf, which is better than half of them coming away with nothing at all.



ATSNN: AND AGAIN, IS THERE A PERSONAL LITMUS TEST FOR ANY JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT YOU MAY MAKE? IF YOU MAKE A CONTROVERSIAL APPOINTMENT, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GENERATE A � POPULAR MANDATE� TO GET CONGRESSIONAL CONFIRMATION?

Charles Jay: I don't want my judicial appointments to be responsible to me. I want them to be responsible to the Constitution. That is something stronger than my presidency, as it will endure well beyond it.

Any judges I appoint, whether it's to the federal bench or the Supreme Court, need to be faithful to the Constitution. They must know and understand the concept of Federalism, and must have demonstrated a sensitivity in that direction. I honestly don't know how that could, or should, be controversial. And what would members of Congress do � challenge someone who wants to exercise strict adherence to the Constitution? They can do that, I guess; after all, they have on occasion shown no respect for constitutionality. But you can be assured I would be there with that piece of paper, from the Founding Fathers, and that's stronger than all of them. So bring 'em on!



ATSNN: AND ALSO, ARE YOU ON ALL 50 STATES (AND WASHINGTON D.C.) BALLOTS?

Charles Jay: I am on the ballot in one state - Utah, which is where the Personal Choice Party is headquartered. We tried to get on the ballot in other states, but in some of them we ran out of time and in others we had issues related to technicalities. Consequently, I am running a write-in campaign elsewhere. But don't use that as a barometer to pre-judge this campaign, because it is quite possible that we will carrying this right through to 2008. If I do that, i am going to be much, much better financed, much more organized, and in a position to get on the ballot in at least 15 states, and maybe more. That won't be bad for an independent campaign. And let me tell you - if we get that ball rolling, we're going to leave our mark.



ATSNN: ONCE MORE, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN �NATIONALIZE� THE GAMING (GAMBLING) ISSUE?

Charles Jay: That's a very smart question, because you obviously recognize that for the most part, gambling is a state concern.

But presidents from both parties have nationalized the issue.

During his first term in office, President Clinton sought to impose a 4% national tax of the gambling industry, then backed off when he encountered widespread resistance. In 1992, George Bush Sr. signed the Professional & Amateur Sports Protection Act, which essentially banned sports gambling in any state which didn't already allow it in some form. In my opinion, there is serious question as to the constitutionality of this law.

Of course, there are current efforts to ban online gambling, led by Senator John Kyl.

Among the states, gambling is on some ballots, and even though a president doesn't necessarily have any authority on that level, I don't hesitate to speak up anyway, because I object to those with a moral opposition to it. As far as I'm concerned, gambling is a transaction between two consenting parties, and a matter of choice.

I also feel, as a matter of principle, that when stripped to its essence, a casino is a business - fundamentally no different than a restaurant or a supermarket. And do we have referendums to approve the opening of a restaurant or a supermarket?

It's interesting - a survey conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates and pollster Frank Luntz indicated that between 80%-90% of Americans people had either gambled, or felt that gambling was a socially acceptable activity. Yet there is a strong group of politicians in Washington who feel as if they must restrict the rights of people to engage in this activity (particularly over the internet) on "moral grounds". Of course, it only seems to be in areas where they can tax the activity. If they can't tax it, they don't want to allow it. Kind of sounds like the "Sopranos", doesn't it? And many of these same politicians would oppose the rights of citizens to marry whoever they wanted to because it was the "will of the people". Who the hell are THEY kidding?

One of the reasons gambling is sought by states to provide financial answers is that it is a stable industry and a dependable revenue source. As an advocate defending the "right to play", I believe we can use a creative solution toward channeling gambling revenue into a social program that becomes a win-win-win proposition for everyone involved.

I am interested in creating better education for children through something I call the "Educational Opportunity Initiative". What I propose to do is lead the effort to repeal the federal laws banning sports gambling (specifically the aforementioned Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act), and create an exception to the Communications Act of 1934 that would facilitate the legalization of online wagering. I would then move to establish a series of lotteries - (1) a national sports lottery game with several variations, covering several different sports; (2) a nationwide lotto-type game similar to multi-state "Powerball"; (3) a series of up to 20 nationwide scratch-off games, not dissimilar from what is being operated in states currently, but designed not to infringe upon current state lotteries; (4) an online lottery that would be open to anyone around the world, also with a number of variations designed to maximize customer participation. These games would not be operated on a day-to-day basis by the government, but the administration would contract with a private company to run it, in exchange for a percentage of the gross.

Then I would work to eliminate the "gray area" in the gambling law � working with representatives of the online gambling industry on a mutually-agreeable tax, in exchange for the activity being regulated and domiciled here in the U.S. The industry itself has expressed a willingness to be regulated, and I see no reason not to accommodate it.

All of this would create an incredible revenue source - I am estimating, conservatively, a minimum of $30 billion per year would be available to the government, all a product not of coercive taxes but voluntary participation. Some of it would be sent to the states. The rest, by law, would be earmarked for this specific program.

My intention would be to issue a voucher to every child in the country from the ages of 14-17, good for a laptop computer and accessories, including an internet access package. The manufacturer, who will have won the government contract through a bidding process, will be responsible for delivering the computers to each child. They would come complete with setup directions, and there would be a national call center to help any student at any time. The internet is the most incredible educational apparatus ever devised, because it can take on the characteristics of television, radio, and textbooks, combined with interactivity, and we will unlock that ultimately for every child in the country. Offering permanent access to that computer, with internet access, will enrich any child's learning experience. With high speed access becoming cheaper, and video more available, there is a tremendous package that can be put together for these kids, when you calculate the value of chat, NetMeeting, instant messaging, newsgroups, message boards, voice-over internet protocol also available. It becomes a learning center completely accessible, and completely active, 24 hours a day.

Indeed, we can now see computers and the internet being integrated into the educational experience in all areas of the country, with a high degree of success, though not nearly as much as it should be.

What I would envision doing with the plan is to coordinate it with some kind of school voucher system, which in effect would offer widespread school choice for the first time, eliminate the monopoly of inefficient public schools, and greatly enhance the results derived from education in this country. One possibility is that the money given to the states might be directed toward funding pilot programs in all the major cities.

Under this particular dynamic, government on the federal or state level would not be delivering the education, as it has customarily done. Instead, it is helping to deliver the TOOLS for education, free of charge, which is truly an ideal situation.

There are many other effects this particular program will have, namely:

• It would allow for more home schooling, and in fact, might encourage it
  
• It would open up a market for private concerns who would deliver a wide and comprehensive curriculum on CD-Roms and/or DVD's, either ad-supported or for a minimal fee. Students could "cherry pick" the subjects they would like to study (in consultation with their parents) and receive credit for them. Many subjects would undoubtedly be available that aren't offered in the limited government school curriculum.
  
• It would hopefully lead to online universities that would be affordable to everyone in America, thus eliminating the barriers to young people getting a college education and/or reducing the need for students to take out burdensome loans to finance their education.
  
• It would put more control in the education of young people into the hands of parents, where it belongs.
  
• It would encourage more privatization and competition, which will always increase the level of quality of the product.
  
• It would immediately take a step toward closing the "digital divide", by offering widespread computer access to minorities and lower-income children, perhaps for the first time.
  
• It would also make a more varied curriculum accessible to rural areas.
  
• It would better prepare every student for college.
  
• It would, for students who don't wind up going to college, equip them with the tools to develop computer skills to take into the workplace.
  
• It would, at the very least, enhance the educational experience by providing an important component of conventional schooling, leading to more blended learning.
  
• It would immediately upgrade the level of instruction in this country, because substandard teachers would be weeded out of the system.
  
• It would put us "ahead of the curve", recognizing the technological direction the field of education is going in.
  
• It would ultimately encourage more entrepreneurship, which will be a boon for the economy.
  
• It would promote not affirmative action, not the exercising of privilege, but true equal opportunity. It's up to every individual and every family as to how to take advantage of that opportunity.
  
• It would tend to equalize educational standards from state to state, because the internet reaches everywhere.
  

Some might refer to this plan as a form of "libertarian socialism". I'm not really interested in those kinds of characterizations. We are not proposing to give kids anything more substantial than a starting point - self-determination takes over from there. To me, it exemplifies the positive ideals of what government can accomplish, and demonstrates that the opportunities afforded to children need not be dependent upon what state they live in. It is completely consistent with the concept of personal choice (you can even choose not to have the computer if you wish). This plan, if not serving to eliminate the wasteful Department of Education, at the very least reinvents it. The federal government should not be in the business of "content" when it comes to education; this effectively takes the government out of that business. However, government can facilitate that education by delivering the tools to make it happen, and that is a proper role, as long as it is not financed through coercive action against taxpayers.

Over the course of time, as the gaming industry grows, more income is generated, and surplus funds are invested, the program can afford to expand to a wider age group, and then, ideally, can move into the grade school market, thus providing the only legitimate "head start" program, then adult education market, assisting those who want to acquire additional job skills or improve the skills they have. This will help American workers be more competitive in the marketplace, bringing a residual effect to the economy. The sky's the limit, really.



ATSNN: AND FINALLY, YOUR POSITION ON MOST ISSUES ALIGN YOU WITH CONSERVATIVES, HOW CAN YOU DISTINGUISH YOURSELF FROM OTHER CANDIDATES THAT HAVE SIMILAR PLATFORMS?

Charles Jay: The assumption in your question is inaccurate. My position on most issues does NOT align me with conservatives. I can only be identified as someone who believes in "personal choice". I tend to be conservative on fiscal issues. I tend to be liberal on social issues. So I am not in the middle � I am usually going to be on the extreme left or extreme right, of course depending on what the issue is.

Conservatives - especially President Bush - have completely abandoned the principles of fiscal responsibility that are ideally the tenets of the conservative philosophy. Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave right now. Bush hasn't reduced the budget or the national debt, has he? I don't think so. Liberals tend to look upon welfare and Social Security as social issues. To me, those are not social issues, but fiscal issues. They look at affirmative action as a policy with many redeeming social values. I look upon it as an unconstitutional continuation of discrimination.

At the same time, I have no use for the legislation of morality, or "government by religion". President Bush didn't even get a mandate from the American people, and now he talks as if he has a mandate from God. That's a scary thing. As far as I'm concerned, the blanket concept of "family values" does not exist. Everyone's set of values belongs uniquely to them, and they have every right to make the ultimate decision as to what those values are going to be, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.



ATSNN: KRAZY JETHRO ASKS, COULD YOU QUANTIFY THE REALISTIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOU AND THE REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS? WHAT WOULD BE THE MOTIVATION FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT THERE AND VOTE FOR THE PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY?

Charles Jay: Democrats and Republicans are very much alike in that they crave control, and look upon the excessive taxation of people as a way of exercising that control. The more money of ours they have, the more control they can exert, and the more dependence people will have on the institution of government.

Neither party has shown any inclination to take pro-active steps in reducing the deficit, and neither seems to have very much accountability to future generations. Both are engaged in this duopoly, designed to keep competitors out of the marketplace. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are particularly interested in bringing new ideas to the table, or in reforming the entire system government operates under. Part of it, of course, is that self-preservation is a primary consideration - these people like being professional politicians, and they enjoy all the special privileges that go along with it. Any significant reduction in the size of government would seem to reduce their leverage, and so there is no desire to encourage that course of action. They are in the "government business". If you were in the music business, would you want the business, and the market for the product, to become smaller? Of course not.

The only real difference is in the WAY the two parties emphasize certain ways to gain control. Republicans, influenced by religious interests, try to exercise more control over the choices of people in their personal and private lives, imposing a intrusive moral agenda. Democrats prefer to exercise more control over our wallets, taking money we earn away us and re-distributing it to people who didn't earn it, on the basis that, as politicians, they're better off with domain over our money than we are.

Both of the so-called "major" parties want to treat us like children. John Kerry wants to be your mommy, and feels he needs to take of you. George W. Bush wants to be your daddy, and tell you how to behave. In the Personal Choice Party, we want you to grow up and take care of yourself.

I think there are an awful lot of people who appreciate that kind of treatment. They want to be able to make their own choices. They are willing to accept the responsibility for those choices. That's why whenever we do an event, we get more and more people interested in the Personal Choice Party message. It's an "adult" message. It assumes people have a mind of their own.



ATSNN: TRICKMASTERTRICK ASKS, WHAT WILL YOU DO TO KEEP THE NATIONAL DEBT FROM FALLING ON OUR CHILDREN?

Charles Jay: Well, it's like the guy who went to see his doctor one day, and said, "Doc, I've got a drinking problem. What's the first thing I need to do?" And the doctor says, "Stop drinking."

I'm not being facetious. What do we have to do about the national debt? Start reducing it. We have to eliminate the budget deficit, because that is the basis on which we borrow and increase debt. We DO NOT do that by raising taxes. We do that by drastically reducing spending. How many people realize that about 13% of our national budget is spent on paying interest on the debt? It's insane. We're going down a black hole.

It is not a stretch to look upon the United States as a company, where the voters are stockholders. Congress is a board of directors, with the president as, well....... the president. And this company has been in the red, in terms of real numbers, each of the last 35 years. You would have fired that board of directors and every member of the executive team long ago. Within that context, voters should never believe politicians when they talk about the virtues of programs like Social Security, welfare, Medicare, government subsidies, and others that lead us rapidly in the wrong direction, not just because the sheer numbers don't work, but because the people pushing them have a past record of abject failure. If you were at a stockholders' meeting, you would never vote for people like that to run your corporation. Why would you vote for them in an election, if you knew there was going to be a very real price to pay, not just now but well into the future?

That's why I laugh at all those people who talk about how "experience' is a big advantage for someone wanting to run for national office. Look where all that "experience" has gotten us.



ATSNN: AND ALSO, DO YOU FEEL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKE IN IRAQ, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE HAD WMD'S, BEFORE OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS CAUGHT?

Charles Jay: Absolutely not. Iraq did not attack the United States of America. It did not, to our knowledge, have any definite link to the tragedy of September 11, 2001. I'm going to suggest something that not many people ..............

[continued]

brought up. I really don't think it was a matter of making a mistake about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. I think it was a matter of the Bush administration knowing specifically that there were NOT weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This country is not interested in taking aggressive actions where there is going to be resistance. This country prefers to win in a cakewalk; to steamroll people. That's what Bush probably envisioned. He didn't get it, obviously, because he ignored what many people seemed to realize - that when you play the part of the aggressor, always on the "offensive", feeling the need to shove democracy down everyone's throat, and you continue to become involved with these pre-emptive actions, you are going to create resentment. It actually creates terrorism.

ATSNN: AND FINALLY, CONSIDERING THE US TIES WITH ISRAEL, HOW DO YOU HANDLE IRAN?

Charles Jay: Look, if you have attacked my country, I don't have any problem retaliating against that. When things aren't so black and white, it's necessary to look at things on a different level.

Here, the fundamental questions have to be asked and answered - yes, we know the country has WMD's, and we know some of the 9/11 attackers crossed through Iran, but were any of the terrorists associated with 9/11 state-sponsored? Are members of Al Qaeda who were involved in planning the attack harbored by the Iranian government? Is there any conclusive evidence of a discernible link between 9/11 and Iran?

If not, then we're just talking about another case of pre-emption. And that's a dangerous practice. When you launch an attack that is essentially based on paranoia, you are giving license to other countries to engage in the same kind of activity. Are we really prepared for irresponsible leaders who go on the offensive because they THINK someone might have the ability and inclination to attack them? When you use that kind of pretzel logic, it makes almost anything plausible. There's a big difference between being threatened and considering someone a threat. With President Bush's attitude toward foreign policy, the United States could be looked upon as an imminent threat to anyone. Are other countries justified in attacking us because WE have weapons of mass destruction?

ATSNN: MARG6043 ASKS, HOW WILL YOU AS A PRESIDENT, FIX THE CREDIBILITY OF OUR NATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND GAIN BACK THE TRUST WE HAVE LOST WITH THE IRAQI WAR?

Charles Jay: You can talk yourself blue in the face, but in the final analysis, actions speak much louder than words. I would completely reshape our foreign policy to one of non-interventionism. We will not play the role of "policeman" in countries all over the world. We will not stick our nose where it doesn't belong. I would end this posture of pre-emption, which can do nothing but create ill-will toward us on the part of other nations.



ATSNN: LOCKHEED ASKS, IN YOUR OPINION MR. JAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE GREATEST PROBLEM AMERICA FACES TODAY WITH DOMESTIC ISSUES?

Charles Jay: Well, there are a lot of them, but front and center is the issue of government spending. That's because you can tie it into so many things - taxes, Social Security, health care, small business development, campaign finance reform, free trade, waste, etc.

We need massive reductions in government spending. If spending could be brought down to the point where it is enough as required to perform the constitutional function of government on the federal level and not much more, you then present yourself with a lot of options. You could actually eliminate the income tax, which sets off a chain reaction making things easier for small business, making health care more affordable, improving education, giving people more choice in shaping their own retirement program. You'll wind up fostering a culture of privatization, which always produces better services through competition. And yes, if need be, you would be able to more easily fund an essential program or two.

Unfortunately, strangers can never be counted on to respect your own money the same way you do. And Congress is the worst offender in this area. Let me tell you a little story to illustrate this:

Once upon a time, there was a kid, growing up in Nevada, who thought it would be great fun if he and some of his friends stuffed some tadpoles down the drain of a local community swimming pool. As a result, the pool had to be shut down for a period of time while repairs were made. The kids never admitted to what they did.

Now flash forward fifty years later. The kid is now an adult, and he says, "I have an enormous guilty conscience for putting frogs in the swimming pool when I was about 10 years old." So he secures $225,000 for new repairs on that same swimming pool.

A good deed? Hardly.

You see, this "mea culpa" came courtesy of Jim Gibbons, a Nevadan who grew up to be a member of the United States House of Representatives, and who was so guilt-ridden about his misdeed that he forwarded the money for the repairs not out of his own personal funds, but as part of an "omnibus" appropriations bill in Congress. That means I paid for it. YOU paid for it. U.S. citizens paid for it.

What's more, Gibbons had no embarrassment whatsoever in exorcising his own guilt by wasting taxpayers dollars through the process of "earmarking" money to local programs.

"Who cares about the process? The process is irrelevant", he said.

Oh yeah?

Interestingly enough, the pool didn't even require $225,000 worth of repairs. Gibbons had to actually FUDGE the figure, thus wasting more of your money, in order to have it deemed "significant" enough to be included in the omnibus bill. And Gibbons actually gets a HIGH score from the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, making this whole thing even scarier.

Government waste is a disease. And we need someone to come along and cure that disease. I would do that by chopping off all the fat, and implementing a substantial amount of veto power until the budget worked itself down to an acceptable level.



ATSNN: JAMUHN ASKS, HOW DO YOU MEDIATE STATE'S RIGHTS WITH PERSONAL RIGHTS?

Charles Jay: The rights of the individual are sacrosanct. They trump state's rights. That's why the gay marriage issue has such resonance. It really doesn't matter to me whether one state recognizes same-sex marriages as being legal. This is not a question of what the state wants to do. It is a question of what the individual chooses to do, and if two consenting adults make a decision to marry, that should be the end of the story.

Within our existing framework, the Defense of Marriage Act is an awful thing. If we're operating under the assumption that marriages require a license - and I'm not ready to concede that - it deserves full faith and credit from ALL jurisdictions.



ATSNN: AND AGAIN, HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT REGULATING PERSONAL CHOICE THAT MIGHT RESTRICT THE PERSONAL CHOICE OF ANOTHER?

Charles Jay: It's simple - you are free to make your own personal choices. If they restrict the personal choices of others, or violate their rights, then you must bear responsibility for those actions, and incur liability, if applicable. That's not the "New Deal". That's not the "Square Deal". That's the "Real Deal".



ATSNN: AND FINALLY, WOULD ANY OF YOUR REFORMS REQUIRE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION? IF SO, WHICH?

Charles Jay: I would propose a repeal of the Eleventh Amendment, which gives sovereign immunity to the states from lawsuits by people outside that state. It was been interpreted by courts to exclude residents of a state from suing their own state, with limited exceptions. States, and their officials, can damage people. They should not have blanket immunity from lawsuits.

I would address the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I don't feel "just compensation" is enough. Public entities should be required to show just cause as well, especially if it was the personal choice of a private individual to retain his property for other reasons. Eminent domain, which often produces one-way negotiations, must be discouraged, not encouraged.

I would propose an amendment to outlaw the federal income tax.

I would propose a balanced budget amendment that could not be based on raising taxes, or re-establishing an income tax (after I get it abolished), but by reducing spending.

I would propose an amendment to reform the electoral college, by establishing a framework of proportional electoral vote distribution, and tie that to alternative voting systems, like Instant Runoff Voting. That way, everyone in America could vote for the candidate they believed in, and the "wasted vote" argument would become completely moot.

I would propose an amendment that would create automatic voting eligibility. If you're a citizen, and you get a driver's license, you are registered. If you're paying taxes, you're registered. Just go to your precinct, prove you are who you say you are, and you can vote. This amendment would also allow for same-day automatic registration, voluntary jury duty, a mandate that all write-in votes be counted, and the establishment of Election Day as a national holiday. We need to encourage more people to vote, and make it easier to do so.

I also recognize that my own education program may have to come in the form of a proposal for a constitutional amendment, because there might be a question as to whether it involved the federal government exercising authority that was reserved only for the states. But you know, this country ran a lottery to fund the Revolutionary War. Lotteries were also conducted by the federal government afterward to raise money for roads and public buildings. Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of lotteries as a way of raising funds "from the willing". So I would probably be on relatively solid ground.



ATSNN: EZIEKAL ASKS, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PLANS ON THE CURRENT FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH AUSTRALIA. OUR GOVERNMENT DID NOT AGREE FULLY WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS OF THE AGREEMENT. CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT OUR PRESCRIPTION BENEFIT SCHEME WILL NOT BE COMPROMISED WITH THE SIGNING OF THIS TRADE AGREEMENT?

Charles Jay: I suppose when you talk about "our government" you mean Australia. I don't know that there are any guarantees that can be made, based on my understanding of what is in this agreement, because American drug companies will fight like hell to maintain their patent protection. Then again, what else is new? I stated earlier in this interview that I was extremely sensitive to the intellectual property issue. And you've got countries who will simply give the go-ahead to produce generic versions of drugs if the U.S.-based manufacturers won't sell to them at a desirable price. It becomes, at least on the surface, a matter of piracy. But there's a larger question, and it involves how much the patent process, or should I say the re-patenting process, is manipulated. Clearly the lobbying, the politicking, the contributions have something to do with the way the U.S. government, and especially the present administration, deals with the pharmaceutical industry.

You know, it costs anywhere from four to five times more to bring a drug to the market in this country than it did 17 years ago. It can also take eight years or longer. There's a lot of bureaucracy there. Eliminating the Food and Drug Administration, or reducing its size and scope, could provide some answers. Assuming pharmaceutical companies feel it's in their interest to put out safe drugs rather than dangerous ones, private solutions might work better - Underwriters Laboratories has been mentioned as an example of where it works in the area of electrical products.

We need to get the patent process under control. Companies can't continue to artificially extend their intellectual property rights, for the sole purpose of preventing or forestalling the introduction of generics into the marketplace. When a patent expires, it expires. That will virtually eliminate the freeze periods for generic drugs hitting the market. Of course, this benefits the consumer in two ways - it gives them lower-priced alternatives earlier, and will result in more aggressive efforts at development and innovation on the part of the major drug manufacturers.

Having said that, it's only fair that the period of time a drug company's exclusive intellectual property rights will last should start upon approval, not at the time of invention. That would give it more time, and a better shot, at recouping research and development costs, which they seek, through their pricing strategy, almost exclusively from the U.S. consumer now and would like to spread around if possible.

If you reinvented or eliminated the FDA, there would be less in the way of extraneous expenses (including litigation), which will have the effect of bringing prices down. It will also make the subject of spreading those R&D costs to other markets (countries) less of an issue.

Inflated prices for the U.S. market would, in turn, also be less of an issue, and so would importation from Canada and other countries, because the price we pay would get closer to the price they pay. Under this scenario, it would be easier for the Australian government to achieve the 12.5% reduction in drug prices promised for the Prescription Benefit Scheme, without any violation of intellectual property rights, and with less need for special favors, protections, or subsidies for the industry on the part of either party to the agreement.

ATSNN: SURFUP ASKS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT YOU WILL BE A BETTER CANDIDATE THAT THE OTHERS RUNNING FOR ELECTION.

Charles Jay: First of all, let me say that if readers chose to cast their vote for Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian nominee), they certainly wouldn't be wasting their vote. Michael is a great spokesman for liberty, he's classy guy, as is his running mate, Richard Campagna, and he has done a very good job in the two years he has been campaigning.

However, I like to think I bring some unique things to the table.

Granted, I'm not a professional politician. And the last thing anybody would see me as is a conventional politician. But you know what?

I'm not trying to BE one.

The future of politics, if it is to be saved, probably resides in people like me - people who are part crusader, part bulldog, part businessman, part "everyman". I'm someone who wants to reverse the trend toward absolute control of our lives through the institution of government, and knows there exists a "silent majority" of people out there who see that trend developing and can't quite put their finger on how to combat it.

I'm not here to tell you how spotless I am, or how much better I am than you. I'm not here to impress you with my encyclopedic knowledge of history, philosophy, religion or law. I'm not here to be a gentleman, or to listen to myself talk. I'm not here to tell you how to live your lives, because your morals and values are your own. I'm here to warn corrupt politicians, feeding from the public trough, and preaching to us about "morals", that if they don't get their act together in a hurry, we're going to take them down, one at a time if need be.

You have to be an intense, uncompromising, steadfast leader with a world of conviction to make that a reality.

In other words, you almost have to be the antithesis of the politician as we know it in this country.

I am seeking the presidency, yes, but unlike conventional politicians, I don't NEED to win the presidency. A candidate who thinks like that can be dangerous to some people.

And believe me, I have every intention of being dangerous.

The way I see it, I could go out onto the street and grab anybody who can come into the room and tell people what he already knows they want to hear. There's no great trick to that - you can find it in almost every member of the Republican or Democrat parties.

The truly valuable person is one who not only speaks the truth, but in the process says WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. When enough people get a taste of that kind of clarity at its most genuine; when they recognize you're willing to do more than just make speeches, but are ready, willing, and able to pay a price, if necessary, for standing up for what you believe in; when they understand it's not just lip service, but leadership, you'd be surprised how quickly they'll get in that foxhole with you.

Stand on the front lines with you.

Break down that wall with you.

Change the world with you.

I am firmly convinced - deep down, whether they're young or old, rich or poor, people want change, and if they find a leader with the toughness, resolve, creativity, ingenuity, and determination to make it happen, they'll follow. They want someone to walk into Washington and literally kick some ass. That's where I come in. I am the definition of that person; the kind of person who's fought the lonely battles; the kind of person who's stood toe-to-toe with authority, without flinching; the kind of person you can get excited about supporting, because I'll "walk the walk", and I'll never sell
you down the river.

Over the course of time, it'll be people like me who wind up changing politics forever, and for the better.

You can bank on it.

Thank you Charles Jay, and a big thank you to BlackJackal for the behind the scenes work and making this possible .

His answers seem very genuine and to the point, not alot of Mombo-Jumbo. I also like the fact he takes an opportunity to say some good things about other candidates and not belittle them. If this is the Future of Politics, Badnarik included, I like what I see. It seems as though Common Sense is applied.

I would also like to thank Mr. Jay for his willingness to perform this interview while on a breakneck campaign tour. The answers he gave were certainly candid and enlightening, something most politicians shy away from.

I have to say I am suprised at the lack of responces this interview has received. Charles Jay was gracious enough to do this interview but ATS has not shown much support in return.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I have to say I am suprised at the lack of responces this interview has received. Charles Jay was gracious enough to do this interview but ATS has not shown much support in return.

I am mad at my self I intended to ask a few questions myself and got so wrapped up in the Libertarian party that I forgot.

I think this party, the constitution party and the LP should join togather their platforms are almost the same

Just got done reading the interview and I have to say I found myself agreeing with the man on many issues. He seems to have a great understanding on the issues. I especially liked the way he gave "common sense" answers to many of the questions...... we need more smart people with common sense in politics. All in all it was a great interview and I enjoyed reading it. To bad I managed to read it this late.

Anyways

EDIT: Douple Post

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Ocelot]

This is the Party I have been dreaming about. A realistic man and realistic party. I truly admire the ideals of this Party, and this candidate. Common sense polotics, hmm whoda thunk?

I had always been an independent in hopes to hold out for just this kind of party.

In fact there is a funny religious quote that I'm not sure they want to associate themselves with but it says it best.

Do what thou wilt, but harm ye none.

It is the PAGANS Creed.

Brilliant platform, and a real down to Earth Man, I'm truly sorry he wasn't able to get his word out sooner.

Dude, in 2008 you have my vote. Hmmph now to fix that fecked Electoral College Shenanigans in time for my vote to count in a predominately Democratic state.

Peace,

-ADHDsux4me

DAMN! This was posted back on 10/23 and I'm just reading this now...I saw it on the top of the home page and clicked on it without hesitation - I only wish I had known he had replied to our questions sooner...(Don't mind me...I must be loosing it!)

He certainly has his head in the right place...Wish I could say the same for W...or Kerry....

Very well-informed and thoroughly thought out answers...Although I have to admit it's a little funny that he replied to my Florida Jewish question, when in fact I realized after submitting it that he wasn't on our ballot...nonetheless - An excellent response

Awesome job on pulling this together Jackal...and an extra round of applause goes to the other member's superb questions!


[edit on 11/25/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]