The 2004 Elections Civil War
Will Help You Decide

America is steeped in a crisis of uncertainty. Are you -- as an independent thinking citizen -- disturbed and concerned about the social aggression of extremists who start, escalate and perpetuate culture wars, the deeply entrenched education establishment that has robbed generations of students of their education, the two-party political system of government growth by bureaucracy, punishing taxation, over-regulation and activist courts, anti-consumer corporate corruption, legal terrorism, the gross lack of judgment and common sense, the overall deterioration of our society and ordinary citizens' rights, biased media-driven chaos, our national security and the betrayal of democracy?

If you feel helpless in this age of superficial selfish interests, extremes and a lack of morals, you are not alone. And there is something you can do about it. Come out from the trenches of democracy, become an extraordinary citizen and demand nonpartisan elected representatives and government and a front row seat in deciding public policy, taxation, your future and the future of your children. If you have any doubts, the uncivilized war of the 2004 presidential election season will help you decide. You know what is in your best interests as an individual and the collective judgment of you and your fellow citizens know what is in the best interests of us all. That's what direct democracy is all about.

Daniel B. Jeffs, founder
The Direct Democracy Center

Founder's letter published in USA TODAY
September 13, 2004

Abolish the two-party system in favor of more democracy

USA TODAY'S editorial, "Limits on Nader hurt voters," rightly recognizes the negative effect ballot restrictions have in disenfranchising voters who think the "real" choice between George W. Bush and John Kerry isn't much of a choice at all. (Our view, Election choices debate, Tuesday). This outcome undermines confidence in the political system

Indeed, Democrats are making it extremely difficult for Ralph Nader to get on state ballots for president because they brand him as the a "spoiler" of the 2000 election, and they want to prevent him from being one again. On the other hand, it is nor fair for Republicans to help Nader get on state ballots because they think his presence will favor their candidate.

But the debate should go much deeper into the real problem: The two-party system simply isn't fair, particularly to voters who've been disenfranchised because of the lock the two parties have on elections and government. It is unacceptable and should be unconstitutional when the political right and left are inextricably confined to a two-party system that hurts the great majority of Americans.

The solution is obvious. The existence of political parties notwithstanding, we should have non-partisan elections, non-partisan government and more democracy. Judging from the increasingly anti-democratic and dismal record of the two-party system, this change is long overdue. Our society has been assaulted by selfish interests and battered by the failures of good intentions long enough.

As a moderate and independent voter, I trust the collective judgment of my fellow citizens. I believe we should elect professional government managers to represent us, instead of professional politicians. I also believe the voters should decide matters of taxation and public policy.

Our national security, our domestic security and our future may very well depend on it.


2000 and 2004 Elections Wake-up Call

It's not the lack of updated voting systems in each state that's the problem, it's the what voting systems mean. Voting accessibility and accuracy are important, but we need more than that -- and soon.

Between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, the American electorate may finally wake up to what is happening to our democracy. It's imploding in slow motion.

Indeed, the two-party system has already imploded, leaving partisan elections and government under the control of political pirates and divisive selfish interest groups -- and most voters disenfranchised.

We need secure voting networks connected to voters' homes. We need nonpartisan elections and government. We need professional government managers instead of professional politicians. And we need to be truthfully informed so the collective judgment of voters can decide the most important matters of public policy and taxation. Our future will depend on it.

DDC Founder


O'Reilly Factor Character Assassination:
Just in time for the election

President George W. Bush's Iraq War debate, John Kerry's Vietnam War controversy, Dan Rather's CBS 60 Minutes document fiasco, and Fox News analyst, Bill O'Reilly's sex scandal set the stage for the final chapter of the worst uncivilized politics and media war story in America, which will surely end with a vitriolic and volatile -- 2004 presidential election -- bang.

The politically motivated, media-driven chaos began with the 60's revolution, the anti-Vietnam War movement and the Pentagon Papers. It moved on painfully to the next chapter, highlighted by the Washington Post's President Nixon Watergate expose', then to the Gary Hart sex bit that scuttled his presidential bid, then to the undermining of Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Robert Bork and the sexual lynching of Judge Clarence Thomas, then to sinking President George H.W. Bush's re-election.

Shamelessly, the media and politics war story peaked with two scandal-ridden terms of President Bill Clinton's sex, lies and impeachment, which vengefully took down two Speakers of the House and others, with the politics of character assassination and personal destruction, and a news media turned terribly tabloid and bias.

Now, it has all sunken into the irresponsible abyss, with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the major print media waging war against FOX News and talk radio -- the two-party system imploding -- leaving voters disenfranchised and steeped in uncertainty about everything from our social, political and economic fabric, to the fears of terrorism. America is better than this...

DDC Founder


I am troubled by presidential candidate Senator John Kerry holding himself up as a Vietnam war hero now, when he participated in anti-war activities that included throwing back his war medals and holding his fellow soldiers up to public hatred and ridicule then.

As an undecided independent voter, I am also concerned about the war in Iraq, however, I am reluctant to change to a questionable horse in the middle of a terrorists' stream and run the risk of spilling even more American blood.

DDC Founder


The Debate Over Who Won the Debate

The September 30, 2004 presidential debate did little more than reinforce the divisive, vitriolic rhetoric spewed by the candidates, their partisan players and the political elite. Indeed, the blind struggle for power only serves to further undermine the people's confidence in government.
Worse, the 2004 presidential election is blatantly politics as usual, even when our nation is steeped in the uncertainty of terrorism. America should not be defined by superficial selfish interests and the "chattering class" of political opportunists.

Surely, it's time for voters to come out from the trenches of democracy, gather our collective judgment and common sense, get our act together, and exercise our franchise as American citizens before it's too late.


Who could be president?

Like the first presidential debate, the 2004 vice-presidential debate between Vice-President Cheney and Senator Edwards was little more than a partisan jousting match leading to the November 2nd election when it will be decided who will be America's champion: Bush-Cheney or Kerry-Edwards. Clearly, it must be the pair who will best preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In this dangerous era of the war against fanatic terrorism, the likelihood of losing a president is far greater than other times. Regardless of partisan campaign rhetoric, what is most important about the candidates for vice-president is to consider who is most experienced and qualified to be president, should that unthinkable situation arise. Vice-President Cheney is the obvious choice.


Much ado about debates is much ado about nothing

Presidential debates and other political debates have been reduced to little more than perpetual campaigns for getting elected or re-elected. In reality, they are nothing more candidates blathering about what they believe the majority of voters want to hear.

If we really want to fix government, our national security, our society and our place in the world, we would elect someone like former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who has the vision and the ability to resolve our problems. On second thought, there is no one alive like Newt Gingrich. Newt for president.


Why Did September 11th Happen?

Presidential elections were largely responsible for the September 11, 2001 attack on America.

If our nation had not been pre-occupied with problems in Bosnia and the economic campaign issues of the 1992 election, the first attack on the World Trade Center might not have happened.

Likewise, if our government had not been distracted by protecting Kosovo, the 1996 presidential election, and presidential scandals, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen would probably not have happened.

For similar reasons, if it were not for the highly contentious 2000 presidential election, the horrific attack of 9/11 might not have happened, and our government would not have retaliated by going to war in Afghanistan or be obsessed by the war in Iraq, which has become the battle front for our enemies.

Now, the question is, what might happen leading up to and after the volatile 2004 presidential election?

Clearly, for over a decade, our unreasonably lengthy and unwaveringly partisan presidential elections seem to have been working against our national security.

And the voracious appetite of our news media should certainly bear some of the responsibility.

America is better than this.


Dangerous Times Ahead

The home stretch presidential campaign battles leading to the wire of the 2004 election are blatantly inciteful examples of how the political Left is desperately attempting to inflame voters with fear, hate and discontent.

For that matter, it comes as no surprise that academia, militant intellectuals and political operatives are feverously trying to resurrect the feeling of the Vietnam anti-war era of the 60's and 70's and apply that kind of revolution to the war in Iraq, simply to get their presidential candidate, John Kerry elected, and to coat-tail more Democrats into office to wrest control of Congress from Republicans.

What unconscionable radicals conveniently ignore, however, is that America's homeland was not attacked just before the Vietnam War, and we were not engaged in World War III against terrorism. Indeed, the Left doesn't really care about the American people. They only care about their distorted view of social engineering and re-taking federal power at any cost.

The mainstream news media ought to be ashamed for its bias, being a major conduit for the Left and for participating in a fraud that betrays journalism and democracy to its core.

Maybe it's time for the collective judgment of the people to decide our future by nonpartisan direct democracy, instead of a Republic of representative democracy gone sour for being controlled by the two-party system too long. Our future may very well depend on it.


The 2004 election dialogue is getting ridiculous

Crispin Sartwell's commentary, "A Candidate to Save Us From Fried Chicken and Janet Jackson" is actually the self-portrait of a nihilist's clumsy attempt at satirizing himself as a candidate for president. On the other hand, considering his background, he seems to mean what he writes. In reality, Sartwell might be dreaming of being the philosopher king of America, just as Plato dreamed of being the philosopher king of his imaginary Atlantis.

According to his bio, Crispin got an early start as an anti-American counter-culturist by being kicked out of the public school system in the tenth grade for fomenting revolution. The Derrida disciple went on to develop a deconstructionist history of helping to infect higher education. He is currently the Chair of Humanities and Sciences at the Maryland Institute College of Arts. Sartwell is also a visiting Associate Professor of Political Science at Dickinson College, and he writes a syndicated weekly Op-Ed column.

Unfortunately, Crispin is among those in academia who believe there is no truth, no good or evil. He believes in nothing, which represents the death of common sense. Fortunately, most Americans don't share his sense of moral relativism. We are grateful for our culture of freedom, even though it has been going through years of painful, divisive times. Surely, we will work it out somehow.

The question is, why would the L.A. Times publish Sartwell's ridiculous October 15, 2004 commentary? Maybe it's because the 2004 presidential election represents the worst in our politics and government. Indeed, after the explosive election fallout subsides, we should give serious consideration to establishing nonpartisan elections and government with professional government managers instead of the power-hungry two-party system's professional politicians. We should have secure voting networks connected to voters' homes. And truthfully informed voters should decide matters of taxation and public policy. Under the conditions of real democracy, we could certainly trust the collective judgment of our fellow citizens.,1,3438153.story?coll=la-news-comment

DDC Founder


Voter Manipulation Civil War Election

News media reports and campaign ads strongly suggest that partisan political activists are recklessly spreading fear, hate, lies and deceit, and manipulating voters all over the country -- particularly in areas which are considered swing states -- in order to win the presidential election.

As an independent voter who just cast my ballot, I am deeply troubled by a two-party system locked in a "civil war election" with a "win at any cost" mentality. If we are to keep our freedom and ensure our security, we must demand the truth and make informed voting decisions.

What we as voters must not forget is that we enjoy a free, but fragile, democratic republic by consent of the governed. However, we must also realize that a government powerful enough to give us anything we want, is powerful enough to take everything we've got -- including the unfettered right to a meaningful vote.

DDC Founder


Morals, values and the media

As usual, left-wing Democrats and the left-leaning media got the results of the 2004 election wrong by trying to rationalize their elitist mistakes, and blaming their loss on the evangelical Christian vote.

They lost because they are on the wrong side of moral human nature. They lost because they pursued in-your-face social and political issues. They lost because of their condescending attitude toward the majority of Americans, whom they believe are ignorant, unsophisticated fools. They lost because they live in a liberal bubble and they are out-of-touch with the real world. And they lost because they underestimated the majority of the electorate who are rejecting what they stand for and what they wrought upon America.

Revolutionary, left-wing elements of the 60's and 70's generation embarked on a mission to change our society by dismantling our traditions and taking over our institutions. And they were painfully successful. Indeed, civil and equal rights notwithstanding, their liberal, socialist ideology -- called progressive -- was regressive, destructive and simply didn't work.

Revisionist academics took over and ruined public education, reconstructed our history, and robbed generations of students of their future. Anti-democratic socialists took over our government institutions and over-regulated the people with legal anarchy and created a giant national nanny. Radical racial leaders overreacted to civil rights and maintained their power by making minorities perpetual victims. Extreme feminists waged war against men and boys, and destroyed relationships and families. The secular elite waged war against religion. The arts and entertainment industry turned into rapid-fire, mind-numbing rot. The press turned into hyper-sensationalism, biased reporting, activist mania, and media-driven chaos. And, of course, corporate opportunists exacerbated nearly all of the above with pandering advertising.

The American culture flies on the wings of freedom and common sense, not flapping around in the circles of right or left wings.

DDC Founder


For Map of the county by county voting throughout the USA and insightful commentary by THOMAS SOWELL on The oldest fraud, click on the following link - LINK


Hillary Clinton for President in 2008?

Reeling from a bitter defeat in the 2004 presidential election, Democrats and the media are already buzzing about Senator Hillary Clinton being the Democratic Party nominee for president in 2008. However, if that happens, they can expect a stinging rejection from the electorate.

Senator John Kerry's failure to win the presidency, taking down Democratic senators and House representatives with him, was the result of voters saying "No" to questionable matters of character, and "Yes" to the moral values represented by President Bush and Republicans.

Kerry would have lost the election without some other influence being involved, but there's more to Kerry's loss than meets the eye. The Clinton factor. Once the Clinton jackals took over Kerry's campaign toward the end, coupled with the Clinton's dishonest appointee, Terry McAullife at the helm of the Democratic Party, Kerry's fate was sealed, and Hillary was in place for 2008.

Problem is, though the country is certainly ready for a woman president, Hillary Clinton won't be the voter's choice. Bill Clinton was able to move to the center to get elected and re-elected, but Hillary's false move to the center in the Senate won't fool the electorate. The majority will certainly know how dangerous an unscrupulous, vindictive, absolute power-seeker, with a White House history of assuming and abusing power, would be.



Founder's letter published in the San Diego Union-Tribune October 9, 2004


Los Angeles Times
Letter to the Editor
Published November 6, 2004
Evaluating the Electoral System


Founder's letter published in U.S. News &World Report newsmagazine - November 22, 2004 issue, published November 15, 2004.

Re: Morals and Values Crowd (2004 election article)
November 15, 2004 issue

Election Analysis

Accuracy in Media
The passing of Reed Irvine on November 16, 2004 comes at a time when his war against the Big Media has achieved some notable successes. In the 35 years since he founded Accuracy in Media, the Big Media have lost much of their stature and do not seem so big anymore.