"(4.) The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier
years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for
President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years
old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath
to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly
overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA—the way all
socialist-communist policies are—then members of the S. S. who are
responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and
comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the
Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating
that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and
causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest
order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste!"
— John A. Armistead —
>
On May 24, 1:52 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You avoid any and all
> questions posed to you.
>
> Earlier in this thread, based on an assertion you made, I asked you
> directly: Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> You have yet to answer (because you can't). Yet you have once again made
> that assertion.
>
> Also based on an assertion you made, I asked you: Does any part of the
> Constitution or any Law require the Secret Service to look into the
> qualifications of the President? You have yet to answer.
>
> Instead you change subjects by opening your post with, "The 'myth' is
> that with the right President the country will be OK." That is, of
> course, completely off topic. Who ever made the claim that "with the
> right President the country will be OK"?
>
> On 05/23/2011 08:43 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear J. Ashley: The "myth" is that with the right President the
> > country will be OK. Well, the USA isn't OK after a lot of
> > presidents! The only requirement for a candidate with our corrupt and
> > failing government should be the repudiation of political parties.
> > Those were never constitutional, but are effectively running things.
> > Kick all political rituals in the ass! The easiest way to do that
> > would be for the candidates to start eschewing campaigning (live) in
> > any of the states. TV debates are an excellent enough way to select
> > our candidates. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
>
> > On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker"
> >> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show
> >> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate.
>
> >> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick
> >> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says
> >> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof).
>
> >> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the
> >>> receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the
> >>> same communiqu� differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a
> >>> "you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was
> >>> hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great
> >>> lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in
> >>> a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point?
> >>> Ha, ha, HA! � J. A. A. �
> >>> On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable
> >>>> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of
> >>>> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no
> >>>> intention of entering the race.
> >>>> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> *John, INLINE:*
> >>>>>> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan:
> >>>>>>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for
> >>>>>>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the
> >>>>>>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played
> >>>>>>> out.
> >>>>>> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump
> >>>>>> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe?
> >>>>>> The media? Or, Donald Trump?*
> >>>>>>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below:
> >>>>>>> "Preface:
> >>>>>>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. The
> >>>>>>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that
> >>>>>>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the
> >>>>>>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that
> >>>>>>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such shall
> >>>>>>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of
> >>>>>>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal
> >>>>>>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet
> >>>>>>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and
> >>>>>>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from
> >>>>>>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be
> >>>>>>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor
> >>>>>>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall
> >>>>>>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens
> >>>>>>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and
> >>>>>>> our posterity."
> >>>>>> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New
> >>>>>> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not
> >>>>>> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not
> >>>>>> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian
> >>>>>>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to
> >>>>>>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. This
> >>>>>>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy:
> >>>>>>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly
> >>>>>>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a
> >>>>>>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in
> >>>>>>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes allowing
> >>>>>>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power'
> >>>>>>> than the members have.
> >>>>>> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> (4.) The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier
> >>>>>>> years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for
> >>>>>>> President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years
> >>>>>>> old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath
> >>>>>>> to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly
> >>>>>>> overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all
> >>>>>>> socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are
> >>>>>>> responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and
> >>>>>>> comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the
> >>>>>>> Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating
> >>>>>>> that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and
> >>>>>>> causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest
> >>>>>>> order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste!
> >>>>>> *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
> >>>>>> Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
> >>>>>> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
> >>>>>> shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained
> >>>>>> to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
> >>>>>> within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution
> >>>>>> offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or how
> >>>>>> such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not
> >>>>>> created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be evidence
> >>>>>> enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility
> >>>>>> of the POTUS. *
> >>>>>>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>> On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt
> >>>>>>>> avoid answering, as usual):
> >>>>>>>> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race."
> >>>>>>>> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> >>>>>>>> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As such,
> >>>>>>>> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most people
> >>>>>>>> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a local
> >>>>>>>> PTA "Madam President."
> >>>>>>>> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret
> >>>>>>>> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The mission
> >>>>>>>> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's
> >>>>>>>> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity
> >>>>>>>> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state
> >>>>>>>> and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
> >>>>>>>> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that the
> >>>>>>>>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our
> >>>>>>>>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls to
> >>>>>>>>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington.
> >>>>>>>>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to
> >>>>>>>>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles in�
> >>>>>>>>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a enough
> >>>>>>>>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many states
> >>>>>>>>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be
> >>>>>>>>> President.
> >>>>>>>>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The rock
> >>>>>>>>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise
> >>>>>>>>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. If,
> >>>>>>>>> as I�ve proposed, presidential candidates spend no more than five
> >>>>>>>>> million dollars on their campaigns, *** there can be,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment