Folks: The readership of my essays has increased considerably since I
first wrote the following. I've rediscovered these earlier writings
while looking for that "summation" essay urging Chief Justice John G.
Roberts, Jr. to disqualify Obama from becoming President—because of
his daily felonious acts. Of course, Roberts had gotten so seduced by
the "power" and the ritual in Washington that, for him, swearing-in-a-
President carries with it no responsibilities on his part. I'll bet,
that when Roberts is arrested for treason, he will think differently.
8/17/08
AN OBAMA NATION WOULD BE AN ABOMINATION!
Later this month Barack Obama is slated to make his acceptance speech
for the Democratic nomination for President. Such will be on the
August 28th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, "I have a
dream…" speech. Like King, Obama is a good speech maker. And like
King, he sometimes can drawn big crowds. But Barack Obama is head and
shoulders below Martin Luther King, Jr. in every principle worthy of
fighting for.
King's 'non-violence' movement should be the watchword for every
minority or group experiencing discrimination. King sought unity of
purpose, and unity of resolve. He was smart enough to know that
nothing is more divisive—within a group, or without—than violent
dissention. Because of his 'non-violence' attitude, many whites
recognized the rightfulness of King's cause and began supporting the
movement. They knew that the time had come to start correcting wrongs
against Blacks that were happening just because of their race.
Primarily, King's dream was to have unfair discrimination against
Blacks come to an end. To have that happen, the plight of Blacks had
to be continually informed to the world—until the message was
received. If King had been asked: "Do you want Blacks to be in
control of this country?", he would probably have seen a symbolic
value in having such a thing be possible. But he would have preferred
that the unfair discrimination stop, and that Blacks be accepted as
'non-blacks' (colorless) by society as a whole. The latter process
was well under way until Barack Obama entered the picture. Because of
him, group-against-group dissention is increasing. Very effectively,
Obama is polarizing the voters with his unfulfillable promises.
Blacks, and 'for change' whites, aren't going to be happy campers when
things don't go as Obama is promising with each fateful speech that he
delivers.
Russia's invasion of Georgia is unpleasant world news. Our pseudo
President, Barack Obama, held his own press conference on the event,
before George Bush had addressed the press. Obama's tone and his
demeanor was that of a movie or TV actor portraying "a" President. In
his selfish mind, if he can just "act" being President well enough,
perhaps he can convince people that he could be President in real
life, too. But the voters should see through his act.
When Obama addressed that huge crowd in Germany, he talked as if he
was the Commander in Chief and said: "The USA and Germany will work
together to solve the problems in the Middle East." Many of you will
recall that both Germany and France refused to be "our allies" in
going after Sadom Hussein. Now, we have this pseudo American
President, Barack Obama, flying out of this country to tell those
German jerks that they will be "involved" in determining the future of
the Middle East—the very responsibility which Germany and France had
shirked. Is Barack Obama Presidential? Or is he certifiably INSANE?
Having unfair discrimination end in the USA is certainly what this
country needs. My New Constitution has been written with those
objectives in mind. But Barack Obama's continued candidacy for
President is pumping hot air into the perennially failed "two party"
system of government that has been bringing, and will bring this
country down. When the DNC decreed that it's acceptable to slash in
half the "democratic" vote of those in FL and MI, democracy is being
raped. As the main beneficiary of that rape, Obama talked proudly
about how important it is to obey "the rules". But aren't the rules
of democracy important, too? And shouldn't Barack Obama have cared?
Four years ago, Obama was running for, but had not won, his Senate
seat. After he did so, that still-wet-behind-his-big-ears, ego maniac
has been campaigning to become President as if he's the panacea for
everything ailing this country. Obama is deluded to think that by his
making of "good" speeches, that those in Washington will just be
bowled-over. In his sick mind, he will be dictating this "program" or
that. In such regard, Barack Obama is like Adolph Hitler. But the
parties aren't going to "unite" just because Obama keeps saying so in
his speeches. For most of our history, the Democratic and Republican
Parties have split the USA right-down-the-middle. And unless we very
quickly kick political parties to oblivion, as by adapting my New
Constitution, the future of the USA is very dim, indeed.
Muslim extremists, or their clones, who were responsible for 9/11 are
still out there. Unless the USA starts doing the right things, from
the Muslim point of view, terrorism will return to the USA. And that
will be true whether Barack Obama or John McCain get elected
President. *** The first requirement for lessening the threat of
Muslim extremists is simply to stop "backing up" Israel with the
military might of this country. *** As has been the case throughout
history, where there are Jews, there is unfairness and resentfulness
of their unfairness.
Jews effectively control government and the media in the USA. They
have become… the clearing house for what we are allowed to read or
see, and they are the clearing house for what laws are allowed to be
passed. Only by NEGATING the undeserved and ruinous power of Jews in
the world, will there be hope for the long survival of the human race.
Muhammad was a wise and good man. But the rules he laid down for
daily living were most apt for the seventh century. At that time, the
rituals of daily life were intended to unify a largely illiterate
people. Daily prayers allowed Muslims to see and to recognize who
one's 'friends' are. But more and more, the continuation of rituals,
of any kind, is increasing divisiveness. Divisiveness, carried to
extremes, is placing the world in danger of nuclear war. There will
only be one WW III, and it will be short.
When much of the world either has given, or is giving women equal
rights, Muslims largely oppress women. That one "difference" causes
Muslims not to be well liked. Those not well liked tend to be
withdrawn and suspicious. By having anything different—manner of
dress, conspicuous rituals, etc. which call attention to themselves,
Muslims are viewed as outsiders. Those who stand out as being
different aren't very welcome in any, otherwise homogeneous, society.
Muhammad would be appalled that Muslims are killing Muslims over
issues of control. In the primitive age when that great man lived,
fighting and dieing for the right, was a noble thing. But I'm sure
that Muhammad wouldn't approve of having Muslims become so isolated in
mixed societies that they consider anyone who is different to be their
enemy. The main 'enemy' of Muslims is their own insistence on
'obedience' to rituals that have long since out-lived their purposes
and their desirability.
If we allow our political parties to continue business-as-usual,
especially, as relates to how the USA does business throughout the
world, we will be inviting more terrorism. As I have said several
times before, the USA will not be content to, again, take-it-on-the-
chin if thousands of our citizens are killed. Our guns are cocked,
and Muslims will be the tender that starts us on the road to the
destruction of the human race. But that final battle need NOT happen!
The false hope that Barack Obama promulgates: "that 'minorities' can
be powerful", is placing the world in grave danger. *** Minorities
must NEVER be allowed to become powerful! *** Democracies are the
strength of the MAJORITY! To realize our attainable goals of having
peace and prosperity in the world, ALL that is required is for people
to RELAX their divisive group loyalties, and embrace the common bonds
that we all share! We should become color blind, and GROUP blind. No
rituals or group objectives are important enough to threaten the
entire human race!
Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ! Any votes for him will seal our
doom. Simply by rejecting, and correcting, our form of government,
the entire world can be set on the right course! When everyone begins
caring about our neighbors as much as we care about ourselves,
everything will turn out just fine. "Pay it forward!"
Be it known: "A New Constitution is the only 'change' that we need!"
Pass it on! And be sure to vote for the Libertarian candidates—to
send the "right message" to the rest of the World!
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
AKA John A. Armistead
P. S.: I realized decades ago that the USA was headed in the wrong
direction, with fewer liberties and higher and higher taxation. I
invite those of you who might be interested to read my recently
published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity."
Such is available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Thanks!
>
On Jan 30, 11:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks: Understanding the fix the USA is in will be easier if more of
> you can read my highly expert analysis of Barack Obama's and Ronald
> Reagan's handwriting. Please talk about what I'm saying. For too
> long, people in this country have been letting the media crooks do
> most of the talking.
>
> 8/05/08
>
> Dear Tom: No two people could be more different than Ronald Reagan
> and Barack Obama! If you haven't read, I am a lifelong graphologist—
> one of, if not the best analyzers of handwriting in the entire World!
> Ronald Reagan's handwriting shows someone with a nervous temperament.
> But that's not a "losing it" nervous temperament like John McCain
> has. Reagan was a conventional thinking man; i.e., his value system
> was like that of most good people. His personality showed that he was
> responding to pressures from various fronts, but he could bend rather
> than break. What that means is: Reagan never compromised his
> principles! Those who show a legible, normal-sized and formed
> writing, that also have a nervous but controlled temperament, are salt-
> of-the-Earth people!
> Reagan's letter forms were legible, but not fussily exact. That
> means that he was practical-minded and not overly concerned with
> details. Writers like that are like the majority of good executives:
> They can delegate authority, and are trusting enough to leave the
> 'petty details' to subordinates. Reagan's signature and the body of
> his texts were similar and conventional. His letter forms were
> consistently rounded and easy-flowing. So, I know that he was
> friendly and well liked. The latter was the primary social trait of
> Reagan, which was evident in his smile, humor, easy body language, and
> gestures. Those things caused Reagan to inspire trust and confidence!
> On the personal side, Reagan was lonely. That fact is indicated
> by the above average space between his words. He'd speak his mind,
> then leave people alone to do the work required. His relationship
> with his family was more detached than he wanted. He had simple, non-
> materialistic ideals. The achieving of worthy goals meant more to him
> than riches. And those were off-the-table if there were family
> pressures. The goals came first, the family second. He was a
> trusting parent—not an overly doting one. To him, hard knocks helped
> build strong character. Sometimes that was tough-love, but it was
> love!
>
> Barack Obama is as artificial and unconventional as his biracial
> parentage tells. From birth, he had identity issues that are ruling
> him to this day. He has an almost schizophrenia-like way of bottling-
> up his emotions. As a kid, he learned to keep his true feelings to
> himself. That's why he never developed the facial expressions and
> body language of a normal person. Such a lack was the first abnormal
> thing I noticed about him when he addressed the 2004 Democratic
> Convention.
> Obama's inferiority complex demanded that he rise above his
> heritage. With each little success, his ego swelled—as did his
> capital letters. Those with huge egos make very poor executives.
> It's their way or no way. Obama would be a misfit in any group
> dynamic such as in the Executive Office. He would keep getting in the
> way of even desirable goals. People will resist him, because he is so
> cock sure. The ideas of others seem small by comparison.
> Yes, Obama has charisma. Basically, that means that he draws
> attention to himself because of his bearing and "poise" in public
> situations. But the majority of what passes as "poise" with Obama is
> his from-birth, personality flaw of not showing appropriate emotions.
> Many must be impressed that he doesn't show nervousness. His control
> over his outward emotions is so developed—but is actually pathological—
> that he could pass any lie detector test with ease. The man is
> emotionally dead. Obama's dominant 'tone' is that of someone who
> isn't happy. He seems to be successful in rallying those who are too
> shy to express their own unhappiness.
> Obama PRINTS too many of his letters. Even in the body of his
> writing he uses printed letters. He makes those forms with such
> exactness that he reveals himself to be a pedant and a perfectionist.
> Both of those characteristics mean that he has few if any friends.
> He's an individualistic, loner. His best contribution would be to be
> left alone to work out the details, but he insists on controlling
> every aspect of every activity around him. Obama has the personality
> of a dictator and a demagogue, not a "Reagan-like" delegater and
> listener.
> Most people with unique personalities, whose writing shows flare
> that's lacking in average people, have superior intelligence. But
> Obama has excessive deliberateness in his writing. Deliberateness
> means artificiality, lack of spontaneity, phoniness, self-centeredness
> and being overbearing. It also shows someone who places form above
> substance. Because printing is slower than cursive writing, his IQ
> isn't as high as his verbal fluency hints. When Obama must express
> his feelings, extemporaneously, he does so in a most broken and
> halting matter, and his talking speed is much too slow! Some view
> that as his being "really affected" by what he is saying. But I view
> it as the expressions of someone with such mixed emotions about things
> that he must PLAN his words. People who do that are UNTRUSTWORTHY.
> That's why I keep referring to Obama as: THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
> Those who are too impressed by his poise-under-fire need to realize
> that he's got the selfish ego of the anti Christ. With Obama,
> disaster will be omnipresent!
>
> So, Tom, how is it that someone smart like you, who now lives in
> China, has the idea that Obama has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of
> improving the World condition? The US Congress—with the majority,
> there, having huge egos, too—won't be swayed by rhetoric. Every day,
> rhetoric slides off of their backs like water on ducks. His "I'm
> angry-toned" speeches appeal to some would-be voters. But after his
> first term bogs down, words won't be enough. Obama doesn't have the
> LIKABLE personality of a "bridge builder". He doesn't have the
> character and the "knows the difference between right and wrong"
> aptitude to be a respected leader. For the good of the nation, Barack
> Obama should never be allowed to "get his picture" on any of our
> currency, or on any paintings hung on the Capital walls. The survival
> of the World is depending on it!
> Your damning characterization of "McCain" are equally true of
> Obama. Obama has already addressed those Jewish jerks, live, while
> standing in front of that rusting war junk in Israel. In unambiguous
> words, Obama promised to "support" Israel (with our military might).
> He is being held captive by those &@$#1 Jews, too. But I'm using
> every ounce of my being to see to it that NEITHER Obama nor McCain
> become President! Electing LIBERTARIANS will send a massage to the
> World that we Americans are as fed-up with our government as those in
> foreign countries are. My New Constitution will instate—for the first
> time in our history—democracy and FAIR PLAY in America! And there
> will be swift consequences to any American business not being fair and
> respectful to those less fortunate in other lands. By "cleaning-up-
> our-own-act", here, the World will soon know that the USA is its best
> friend.
> Obama promises 'changes'… while he is leading us to our doom.
> But be it known: "A fair, just and pro democracy NEW CONSTITUTION is
> the only 'change' that we need!" Pass it on! — NoEinstein — AKA
> John A. Armistead, Patriot
>
> On Jan 29, 11:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Readers:
>
> > It continues to enlighten me how "right-on" many of my previous
> > essays, relating to my odyssey to save the USA, have been. Here is
> > one which I wrote to counter the LIE that Tim Russert had been an
> > admirable public figure:
>
> > 6/24/08
>
> > TIM RUSSERT PERSONIFIED WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT THE MEDIA.
>
> > Many would suppose that it is… the 'American way' to advance from a
> > lowly Washington reporter to have been one of the 'most watched'
> > leaders of the media. But Tim Russert was about as anti-American as
> > they come. Yes, he used smiles to punctuate his trademark attacks on
> > the 'weaknesses' of his many guests. And he sometimes punctuated
> > those attacks with looks of cynicism. But, getting good Nelson
> > Ratings shouldn't be the standard by which any media figure is judged.
>
> > While Russet's star was just rising, I had the 'inside scoop' on
> > felonious acts committed by one of our most notorious US senators.
> > Sounds like… 'news', doesn't it? But over several years—while I kept
> > trying to get my story out—I learned that the media is corrupt-to-the-
> > core. To wit: The media assumes that so-called 'public figures'
> > aren't required to live by the same standards of lawfulness as other
> > citizens.
>
> > Because Tim Russert seemed to be someone who 'attacked' his news
> > stories, I poured-my-heart-out to him in a letter that also included
> > pages of documentation copied on the old 3.5" floppy disks. But
> > Russert, nor any of the thirty or so other media 'icons' whom I
> > contacted would even consider that… 'news' might come from someone who
> > isn't a celebrity. What gets covered as news in this country must
> > pass through layers of… editors, before some of it leaks through. It
> > is that same process—that eventually found Tim Russert at or near the
> > top of the media pecking order—that allows me to rightly peg Russert
> > as anti-American. The tacit role of the media is to inform the
> > Citizens. Tim failed to properly do so, because of his bias
>
> ...
>
> 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.
