9/11 Print Ads

Original 9/11 Ad Santa Barbara News-Press

Original NY Times Ad

Original Santa Barbara Independent Ad

Yellow Weekly Planet Ad

NY Times Ad with Zogby poll.

Village Voice Ad for 9/11/04 Event

Newsweek, Forbes, Business Week, Censored by Reader's Digest and Atlantic Monthly

Harpers Magazine's Whitewash Cover

USA Today Ad

2/26/03 LA Times - CANCELLED BY LA TIMES - after they approved it, took our money, and past deadline. See the emails and details above.
2/22-24/03 in Santa Barbara News-Press
2/27 - 3/5/03 in Santa Barbara Independent (a weekly)
2/27/03 in Spanish in La Opinion in LA and, of course, the NY Times
2/28/03 in the Santa Barbara News-Press
3/5/03 in the Weekly Plant/Creative loafing (entertainment/alternative newspapers) in Tampa, Atlanta, Sarasota, Charlotte, Raleigh, Norcross-GA, Greenville/Spartanburg

Impeach Ad:
3/5 - 3/12 Washington Times
3/7 - 3/10 Santa Barbara News-Press

Civil Rights and LA Times Refusal AD:
3/7/03 & 3/8 Washington Times
3/13/03 Santa Barbara Independent

Jesus Ad
3/9/03 & 3/10 - Washington Times

3/13/03 - 3/14/03 Santa Barbara News-Press

Press Release

For Immediate Release (March 10, 2003)

Contact: Jimmy Walter (805) 964-5815


SANTA BARBARA, CA – March 10, 2003 – As the clock ticks towards the deadline that U.S. President Bush announced in his recent address to the nation, businessman and self-described humanist Jimmy Walter has stepped up the pace of the Walden Three advertising campaign accusing U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell of lying to the United Nations, and charging the Bush administration with pushing the country and the world to the brink of an unnecessary and counterproductive war.

The ads, which began running in February, are appearing in newspapers across the nation, including the Washington Times and the New York Times. Mr. Walter says more are scheduled, and that the entire series, along with supporting documents, is being posted on www.walden3.org, the non-profit educational foundation Mr. Walter founded to promote rational, planned, sustainable cities and societies.

Mr. Walter said he turned to advertising as a last ditch effort to get the word out regarding how Powell and the Bush administration have misled the United Nations and the world. "It will be a disaster," said Mr. Walter. "Someone has to at least try to stop this madness. This war will increase, not decrease, terrorism against the American people and wreck the world economy,"

He said when friends ask why he is doing this, he says, "Because I care. We at Walden Three are trying to create a practical Utopia. We will not be able to do that in a world that is in shambles." The ads to date have cost over $250,000. "We're attracting attention," said Mr. Walter, "so people will at least question the deceitful campaigns both Bush administrations have conducted. We are spotlighting the numerous false 'facts' they are using to push us into a lose-lose war."

Mr. Walter said he still hopes that war can be avoided, "if enough people are made aware of the Bush administration lies." He says that "while Mr. Unseeing is clearly a cruel tyrant, we can contain him with U.S. military might just as we contained the USSR, an 'evil empire' that definitely had weapons of mass destruction, ICBM's, and the nuclear submarines to deliver and hide them. The terrorism this war will incite will be much harder to contain.">

Article by St Pete Times

Article by Santa Barbara News-Press'

AD: 3/11 & 3/14 Washington Times, 3/14 USA Today, Click to see image

>Expanded Information Contained in Walden Three's Ad Campaign: >

2003 Gulf War Facts:>

'Iraqi Uranium Purchase A Lie: " 'The IAEA has concluded ... that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic,' El Baradei told the U.N. Security Council. Britain and the United States have alleged that Iraq had tried to revive an ambitious atomic weapons program that was neutralized by the United Nations before inspectors left in December 1998."
Please go to this web page to see the full story: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2346364

>No Poison Factory: Powell testified to the UN that there was a "Poison Factory" in northern Iraq. Foreign journalists were invited in two days later and found nothing, not even aspirin.
Please go to this web page to see the story:
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html >

>Iraqi Reactor Parts Evidence Faked: "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions."

>War will Increase Terrorism - CIA: George Tenet of the CIA testified to Congress that attacking Iraq would greatly increase the chance of terrorism and Sad dam unleashing any weapons of mass destruction he might have. See below:

>Wall Street: Casualty of War Alan Greenspan and practically all economists have stated that
the imminent war is causing the current crash on Wall Street. See below:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030310/economy_bluechip_1.html >

>Vatican: War Immoral, Illegal The Pope, through Cardinal Pio Laghi, has told President Bush that a preemptive strike against Iraq is immoral and illegal and not supported by God.
Please go to these web pages to see the full story:

>Claims Do Not Stand Up to Scrutiny: "The 44 claims made by Secretary Powell to the U.N. on Iraq, 5th February, 2003 — and their evaluation"
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/powell030205.html >

>Sixteen discrepancies between Powell's claims and the evidence of Blix and Elaborate: Evidence does not support claims by Powell.


3/11 & 3/14 Washington Times, 3/14 USA Today, Click to see image


1991 Gulf War Facts:

Satellite Photos a Lie: The U.S. government lied about an imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iraq to justify the first Gulf War, general Norman Schwartz recalls in his book, It Takes A Hero. The Bush Administration claimed that satellite photos showed 260,000 troops and1,500 tanks on the Saudi border. There were none.

Powell Admits Wrong: Powell admitted the "numbers were wrong". There was no imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iraq.

Baby Murders Faked: The Kuwait Ambassador's daughter, coached by a Washington PR firm for $2 million, lied to US Congress, the UN, and the American people about the infamous "Incubator Baby" murders. Please go to this web page to read the story behind the headlines above by the Guardian Unlimited Newspaper: http://www.walden3.org/Knockabouts!.htm

U.S.Okayed Kuwait Invasion: April Glaspie of the U.S. State Department told Saddam Hussein, "I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
Please go to the web page below to see the story:

>Iraqi Poison Gas Use Not Proven: "There were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq."
Please go to the web page below to see the story:

>Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place;
for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and
He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned." -Buddha>

On March 5, the Santa Barbara News-Press reported that a spokesman for the US State department claimed they were unaware of our full-page "Powell Lied?" ad in the NY Times on page A-15 on February 27, 2003. There is a commentary in this: the US State department knows that there are poison factories and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but they do not know what is on a full-page ad in the NY Times.

Shall we infer incompetence, or a lie? Or an incompetent lie?

> >Full page ad in Washington Times>:

Impeach Powell:>

We know that Saddam Hussein's terrible acts make him a man unworthy of defending, but we are NOT defending Saddam. Rather, it is the citizens of the United States of America that must be defended from tens of thousands more terrorists created by this, perhaps, unnecessary war. It is United States soldiers we must defend from senseless death and maiming. George Tenet of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) said the greatest threat from terrorists and Saddam would come during and after we attacked Iraq. >

Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) worked for more than 45 years against the U.S.S.R. which had nuclear weapons, ICBM missiles, and the submarines, to deliver and/or hide them. >

We as citizens, seek to defend the Iraqi innocents, who have no chance of overthrowing Saddam, from death, maiming, and the further destruction of their homeland by the military campaign "Shock and Awe." We also defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the freedoms that President G. W. Bush is quickly dismantling with the first and second Patriot Acts.

These are the reasons that we are running "Powell Lied?" ads. We thought that if the public were aware of first Bush administrations' history of lies, we might avoid a second Gulf War. >

The current administration is practically the same as the original one. The current rush to war is riding on Colin Powell's credibility before the United Nations. The majority of U.S. citizens want U.N. Security Council approval before rushing to war. Powell has been lying for two Bush administrations. He should have no credibility by now. >

President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate for lying about sex. Should not the Secretary of State receive at least the same type of for either lying, deceiving, or allowing others to deceive the United Nations, the United States Congress, and the American voters? >

First, he, nor the current administration hasn't admitted that the there was never a "poison factory" in Iraq, as the U.S. government claimed. Neither he, nor the previous Bush administration, admitted Saudi invasion threat numbers were fabricated.

Second is the scope of the mistakes, considering that the technology our government has, it is unlikely that information was misread; if so, this shows gross incompetence. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, Powell saw the satellite photos from the first Gulf War. He would have known that the first Bush administration was lying about the impending Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. >

Generals are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces, and the Secretary of State are therefore subject to the UCMJ. >

Third is the forum. This was not casual conversation. Powell was testifying to convince the U.N. Security Council, the citizens of the United States, and the United States Congress, to send soldiers to die. He had and still has an obligation to be absolutely sure. Negligence at this level is surely cause for dismissal.

War cost the citizens of the United States billions of dollars. If they are defrauded into spending money on war, that is a crime. If Powell saw fraud being perpetrated against the American people and US Congress, he was and is obligated to report it. He should have spoken up. By not speaking up, he is at least an accessory to a crime. We must impeach President Bush if he fails to dismiss Secretary of State Powell and prove his own ignorance of the facts.The difficult problems facing our nation, and world, can only be resolved if we know the truth. We do not want to be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. >

We are against all terrorists, whether they carry the bombs or drop them from airplanes. Two wrongs do not make a right. If the lesser of two evils must be chosen, the choice must be based on truth. Powell deserves no credibility. He deserves to be impeached and removed from office.

Write or email your congressperson, Congressional Email/Mail Addresses, demanding that Powell be impeached.

James W Walter, President, Walden Three; Chair, Life Skills Foundation>


The Constitution of the United States of America:

Article II. Section 4. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers [Secretary of State, Defense, etc.] of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment [Indictment] for, and Conviction of [by the Senate], Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.">

Uniform Code of Military Justice


Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court martial may direct.


(1) (A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain false or fraudulent statements; .....shall, upon conviction, be punished as a court-martial may direct.

>United States Code [Civil and Criminal Law] >

Title 18. Part 1. Chapter 47. Sec. 1002. - Possession of false papers to defraud United States: >

Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both>

Satellite photographs are papers. Powell used the satellite photos either directly or indirectly to fight the first Gulf War. >

Title 18. Part 1. Chapter 19. Sec. 371. - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States >

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Since more than one person was involved in the hoax it is a conspiracy. >

Title 18. Part 1. Chapter 47. Sec. 1031. - Major fraud against the United States >

(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - >

(1) to defraud the United States; or >

(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, >

in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. >

"No casus belli [Perfect Cause for War]? Invent one!" from The Guardian

The Truth About War>: http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml >

ST. Petersburg Times editorial: "It's not easy to lose a public relations campaign with a man as repugnant as Saddam, but the Bush administration seems to be trying.">

"Disinformation as a War Crime"


The LA Times balked at running the "Powell Lied" advertisements after first approving the ad, charging my account; and after deadline for submission had passed. >

The emails, LA Times Emails, show this. The initial approval follows this narrative. After deadline, they called me to say they wouldn't run it because it violated "fair usage" standards. I had already been in contact with The Guardian Unlimited. I had been delayed in getting approval to reprint their articles. This was nothing sinister, just that permissions are a minor formality. Since time was of the essence, I had rewritten the stories to use them in the ad. This same ad had been approved by the Santa Barbara News-Press, the Santa Barbara Independent, La Opinion (in Spanish), and The Weekly Planet/Creative Loafing of the Southern US (see list above). >

A manager at the LA Times named Jerry was put on the line to tell me the bad news. When I asked for some explanation he said it was like a five stanza poem or song. If you used one stanza unchanged, that was "fair use." So I went back and cut it leaving mainly quotes and resubmitted. Jerry now told me that it was still too close to the original and that using the quotes was not "fair usage" either. The quotes make the piece. Quotes belong to the speaker, not the newspaper. I asked for a better explanation and he suggested I get a lawyer. I asked what good that would do since, in effect, four other copyright lawyers had seen no problem with it. If I got another lawyer that said it did not violate "fair usage", that was obviously not going to change their lawyer's mind. I informed him that I would call the Guardian that evening (they are 8 hours ahead of PST) to get permission to reprint the original articles. Then Jerry began hemming and hawing that the ad would have to go through many different managers to get approval. He stated that the LA Times had the right to refuse any ad. I replied I knew that and I was trying to work it out, not force him to do anything, since he had previously stated that they were in the business of selling ads.

The original ad had the web page addresses for the articles upon which my rewrite was based. Every newspaper has an "acceptability" department that verifies the content of political ads. They would have gone to the website to verify that what I was saying was correct. When they did, they would have seen at that time whether the rewrite was "fair usage". "Fair usage" would be a standard item to check, not a last minute, after acceptance, after payment item. It seems obvious to me that they were hoping I would not understand so they could divert me into wasting my time in finding and talking to a lawyer, thus "spiking" [discarding] the ad or delaying it until after the war had started.

I obtained the permissions from the Guardian. I stripped the ad of all copy - just the headlines that appear in the New York Times ad. I sent both versions to them that night so they could choose. Two days later there was still no approval or disapproval. I thought something was amiss, I was irritated at them anyway, and I had called the NY Times in the interim. The NY Times approved it.

This was a blessing in disguise. The NY Times was a better venue for my purposes: the UN and all its employees would see it. I was trying to stop a majority of the Security Council from siding with Powell before inspections had a chance to work. I think the headline ad was better in many ways. I'm not going to sue them; that would violate my philosophy. Let us focus on the future; not the past. >

>"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned." -Buddha (c. 566-480 BCE).

Run Schedules:

From: Page, Jimmy [Jimmy.Page@latimes.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:10 PM
To: 'jimmy walter'
Cc: Hernandez, Irene
Subject: RE: Los Angeles Times

The ad is ok to run per our Adv Standards Dept
The earliest we can get the ad in the paper is Monday 2/24/03 (deadline Friday 2/21, 12 noon PST)
We will need account name/address/phone number
credit card for pre-payment.

We also need to know if we need to typeset the ad for you; or if you are sending it electronically.
(if sending electronically- the words "ADVERTISEMENT" must be in 14 pt bold capital letters)

Please see electronic ad submission info below.

Please follow up with Irene Hernandez on Friday 2/21 to finalize all the details. She will be in the office at 8:30 a.m.
irene.hernandez@latimes.com, 213-237-3033


Three California Highway Patrolmen Enforce Montecito Posting Ordinance; Not a Single Officer to Enforce Civil Rights:

The windshield of Mr. Walter's car has been broken by domestic terrorists (they were trying to terrorize Mr Walter). See photo. The Santa Barbara Police and FBI refused to investigate. This is a civil rights violation. Walter had security cameras with tapes. >

On Saturday, February 22, 2003, I went out to my car and found the window smashed. I called the Santa Barbara Police non-emergency number. A lady answered. I told her my windshield had been smashed. She replied that they did not investigate vandalism and would I like them to send me a letter. I spoke up saying this was not mere vandalism, that my car had anti-war signs on it and no other car had been touched. She cut me off in mid-sentence asking rather brusquely, "Do you want us to send a form letter to you?" I knew I was going to get nowhere so I said my address. She said, "What?" I said send the form and repeated my address finishing with, "Some protection." I have still not received the form.

I then called the FBI in LA. I relayed the story, and he also replied that it was just vandalism and they would not investigate. I proceeded to tell him that I have video recordings of a man tearing down my signs two days earlier. I just printed up some more and put them back up. I didn't want any hassle with the police or FBI. But smashing my windshield and car hood was an acceleration. This was a trend towards increasing violence. The FBI representative then went into a dialogue about my not following procedure. Because I had not reported the first incident they would not investigate now. I asked for his name. He said they did not give out their names. I thought, "This is like the secret police." I asked how to make an official complaint. He said I could not. I said they must have some form. He said they did not. I said there was a form on their website. He said I should go fill it out. I did. No response has been received to this day.

I called US Representative Lois Capps' Santa Barbara office and left a message about this. They are closed on Saturdays. Since then I have called and faxed US Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, US Representative Jim Davis, and the Democratic Party of Florida where I was born and have lived the majority of 55 years. I gave the Florida Democratic party over $30,000 in the last election alone. I have been generous to many Florida Democrats over the years. No one has responded. I will add to this section any response that may come. Readers may check the currency of this information by the date at the top of the web page.

Someone did eventually respond: my landlord. Someone had called him to complain about the signs at the house. I understand his position completely. His income was threatened. What if the house were burned down? I had already removed all the signs the day before. The neighbors, as well as everyone on my email list, knew about it. I told him I would not argue. I assured him the signs would stay down. >

But there is  additional information. Friday, February 21, 2003, the day before the discovery of the smashed windshield, I was protesting at the Montecito Farmer's Market. I was on the side of the road with my "Powell Lied" signs, waving them. A man approached me and said, "At least Powell's a man!" I offered him a handout, asked him to read it, and offered to discuss it. He refused and continued his childish insults on my ability to reproduce and/or fight. I tried to ignore him. His verbal abuse increased and he started towards me in a belligerent manner. I dodged through traffic to the other side of the street and continued waving my sign. I called out to others nearby, "This is assault. Someone call the police." Of course, no one did. Instead, a man approached me and said something in what seemed a thick Scottish accent, which was not complimentary. I said, "I'm sure glad I couldn't understand that." He came up to me and said it distinctly, "F--K, you." The man on the opposite side had gone into a restaurant so I darted back to the side of the street where I was at first. The first man was now on the restaurant balcony overlooking my position. He continued his threats and abuse.

Finally I had had enough and called 911 myself. When I finally reached the Santa Barbara Police (they serve Montecito), the first question from the operator was whether I was in the restaurant, protesting. I said no, I was not. I looked up and the man was nowhere to be seen. The officer asked if I wanted a car to come to investigate and would I prosecute, her voice indicating reluctance to send one. I really did not want the hassle and I would probably have had to go down to the police station, which would end my protest. Furthermore, it is my philosophy "to turn the other cheek". I had a cell phone and there were lots of people around. So I told them no, not to send one.

I frequently go to a cafe in Montecito for morning coffee. I usually carry some handouts with me and park my car along the side of the street across from the cafe so the signs can be seen. About the third day of doing this, three highway patrolmen were at the cafe, something I had never seen. The patrolmen were not in the cafe. They were standing by their vehicles, two cars and a motorcycle. None had coffee. My two dogs were with me that morning. I got out of the car, a dog's leash in each hand. I had the handouts under my arm. The dogs are excitable and were tugging me in different directions. The patrolman on the motorcycle turned on his loudspeaker and announced, "If you post those signs you will be cited." I had no tape, no nails, no staples, nothing with which to "post" the signs. I had no intention to, nor had I ever posted a sign in Montecito though I have posted them on bulletin boards or next to other signs in Santa Barbara where I thought it was okay. I told him I had no intention of posting them and proceeded to get my coffee. Then they came into the shop after me to have coffee. The motorcycle officer brought in one commercial poster he had pulled down and showed it to me saying, "This shows that this was not politically motivated." They had not pulled down the dozens of other smaller signs all over Montecito. II have not seen the three since. It seems to me that their actions actually proved the visit was politically motivated.

Three highway patrolmen just happened to be in Montecito enforcing the local sign-posting ordinance and/or intimidating me (which would be a violation of civil rights under color of law), but not a single person was to investigate the violations of my civil rights.

This happened before any ad ran; just for having signs on my car and house.

>James W Walter>


State Department of Justice guidelines:>


16.109 Civil Rights Prosecution Criminal


To reduce significantly police and other official criminal misconduct, and to eliminate or substantially reduce violent activity by private citizens (including organized hate groups) against others because of their race, religion, national origin, or sex, which interferes with the Federal and constitutional rights of individuals.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Investigation of Complaints. >

USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS: The Section prosecutes cases of national significance involving the deprivation of personal liberties which either cannot be, or are not, sufficiently addressed by State or local authorities. Its jurisdiction includes acts of racial violence, misconduct by local, State, or Federal law enforcement officials, violations of the peonage and involuntary servitude statutes that protect migrant workers and others held in bondage and violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The Section ensures that complaints are reviewed on a timely basis for investigation and potential prosecution. >

US Code. TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Sec. 242.

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law >

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. >

Back to top


"Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also…. Love your enemy"

Preemptive massive military strikes ("Shock and Awe") that kill thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, leaving many more homeless without food, water, power, medical attention, are necessary and justified to get one "evil" man.

"How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

 …Until seventy times seven."

Is "out of patience" in 6 months with no credible evidence against Saddam

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;"

Is "sick and tired [angry] of games and deception" from Saddam Hussein; Angry about Enron; media leaks; on and on  [go to Yahoo and search for: "Bush angry".

"and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; "

Calls Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea "Axis of Evil…" This is worse than calling them "good-for-nothing".

"and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell…."

Calls N Korea leader a "pygmy" and "typical rogue"

"… make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth… "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black…."

Swears he won't burden future generations with debt; swears vengeance against evil doers; swears to shrink the government; bring in Osama; bring down Hussein. These sworn tasks have not been accomplished.

""Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? ….Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" [pay your taxes without complaint]

Claims taxes punish the profit makers and should be reduced or abolished

"It shall be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Promised "I will not engage in class warfare" while his tax cuts went to the rich and he let lapse unemployment compensation for workers.

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Bush says "Rich deserve more of a tax break". Cuts welfare for children:

Back to top


As Lincoln said, "The war is thrust upon [us]." This is a war on war where words are the weapons, the pen against the sword. Time is running out. It is more important to inform now, to strike a blow for freedom and sanity now, than that our uniforms be starched and white.

Impeach Powell ad: Impeach Ad.jpg

Mr. Walter's Civil Rights Violation & LA Times Refusal Ad - same as website above:

Jesus ads - same as website above:

Original ads:
Powell ad with text instead of headlines.jpg

Headline ad in NY Times:
Powell Ad Headlines .jpg

Run Schedule:

2/26/03 LA Times - CANCELLED BY LA TIMES - after they approved it, took our money, and past deadline. See the emails and details above.
2/22-24/03 in Santa Barbara News-Press
2/27 - 3/5/03 in Santa Barbara Independent (a weekly)
2/27/03 in Spanish in La Opinion in LA and, of course, the NY Times
2/28/03 in the Santa Barbara News-Press
3/5/03 in the Weekly Plant/Creative loafing (entertainment/alternative newspapers) in Tampa, Atlanta, Sarasota, Charlotte, Raleigh, Norcross-GA, Greenville/Spartanburg

Impeach Ad:
3/5 - 3/12 Washington Times
3/7 - 3/10 Santa Barbara News-Press

Civil Rights and LA Times Refusal AD:
3/7/03 & 3/8 Washington Times
3/13/03 Santa Barbara Independent

Jesus Ad
3/9/03 & 3/10 - Washington Times
3/13/03 - 3/14/03 Santa Barbara News-Press


Home | About Us | Books & DVDs | Pictures and Videos | News & Events | Tell-a-Friend
Petition | Volunteer | Donate | Links | Contact Us