Re: An Open Letter to Ron Paul

Dear MJ:

It's been about nine months since my last reply on this news group. I
was so intrigued by that post of yours: "An Open Letter to Rush
Limbaugh", by L. Neil Smith, a Civil Libertarian, that I penned him
the following long email about my New Constitution—which many of you
have at least heard about. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot

4/09/12

Dear L. Neil Smith:

I happily read your "open" letter to Rush Limbaugh. I also, happily,
voted for Ron Paul in the SC primary. I am ultra conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I've marveled how
expertly (except regarding global warming) that Rush Limbaugh can
correctly tag the issues of the day. However, one thing is missing
from ALL media discussions of politics: The necessary 'call-to-
arms' (figuratively, of course) to actually correct the problems that
the commentators so relish discussing.

Rush Limbaugh is a professional belly-acher. If the problems actually
got FIXED, no one would have reason anymore to listen to him (or them)
belly-aching. That same label fits Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, etc.
To remain at the TOP in the media ratings, every one of them must
include one or more "curls" in their slants on positions. The curls
are statements seeming to support the "legitimacy" of the extreme
left, socialist/communist positions. That, usually, is remarks
claiming all of the problems are just the political business-as-
usual. No commentator, out there, has correctly labeled those actions
that exacerbate this country's problems as TREASONOUS, hang-them-by-
the-neck-until-dead actions! President Obama's birth certificate was
clearly created in a layered PDF format, which anyone, including an
architect like me, knows did not exist when Obama was born. I have
boldly called for the Secret Service, the #1 document-fraud-proving
agency in the USA, to confirm that Obama is an illegitimate president,
who should immediately be arrested, tried, and hanged for TREASON.
That isn't "blowing a plastic whistle". That is using the POWER that
the Constitution has over who can and who cannot become our
president. Of course, if Obama gets hanged, YESTERDAY, as should have
happened, the corrupt news networks (all of them!) would no longer
have a GAME on which they can give 24/7 365 day a year coverage.
Without the GAME of politics, why would anyone watch their
advertisement-dominated programs?

Unlike most who only complain about the problems, I have spent the
last 16 years of my life actually trying to fix things! How? I have
pinned and polished The New Constitution of the United States of
America. You haven't heard about it? Of course not. That's because
the corrupt media—all of it—would be forever precluded from commenting
on anything regarding politics. Stations purporting to be 'news'
stations or networks would be allowed to COVER the news of the day as-
it-happens, but NOT to have 24/7, smiley-faced commentators telling
the voters the "significance" of what they are being shown or told.
And it would become unconstitutional to poll the public about anything
relating to politics. Amazingly, all of the following are
unconstitutional, based on the SPIRIT of our original constitution:

A. The US Senate. Such is an oligarchy—counter to the mandate that
the USA be a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC—and was included because small
states blackmailed the Constitutional Convention into giving small
(low population) states equal power in at least one body of Congress,
or those small states would not sign the document. From day one, and
as things now stand, the USA is predominantly an oligarchy, because
the US Senate has the most power.

B. The US Supreme Court. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say
that the Supreme Court has power equal to either the Executive Branch
or of Congress. The mere inclusion of the Justice Department as a
separate Article, does NOT give that department equality with
anything! The defined "power" of the Supreme Court—tempered of
course, by the SPIRIT of the Constitution as a whole—only allows
saying yes or no regarding the constitutionality of some law or issue
being evaluated. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that "only
the Supreme Court has the intellect to understand the Constitution and
to decide how issues should be resolved". The SPIRIT of the
Constitution—which clearly focuses on having the POWER be vested in
the People—disallows having a single robe-wearing and politically-
biased justice have more... "power" than either the Executive Branch,
or the Congress. Therefore, the Supreme Court, as such has evolved to
be, is a king-like alternative to a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, that is
now, and always has been unconstitutional according to the overall
SPIRIT of that document!

C. Laws that run counter to the Will of the People. Nowhere in the
Constitution does it say that "laws" not having popular support can be
enacted or enforced. In a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, the votes that get
cast are supposed to reflect the Will of the People. Therefore, laws
not having popular support are ALL unconstitutional and are
UNENFORCEABLE, and without requiring the assent of ANY court!

D. The rules and rituals of Congress can be determined by which
"party" has the power. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow
biased political parties to act as clearinghouses for whom we can
consider as candidates for public office. And nowhere in the
Constitution are any GROUPS allowed to hold sway over the processes of
our REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!

E. Political parties. Because those are the antithesis of a
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, such are now, and always have been
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

F. Multi-dated Political Primaries. Having nonpolitical, preliminary
votes to reduce the slate of candidates IS constitutional. However,
having such be held on different dates gives the most power to those
in states like Iowa. A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC shall never allow the
voters in a particular state to have more power than the voters in
another state. Therefore, multi-dated political primaries are
unconstitutional!

G. The Electoral College System. When the Constitution was written,
there was no available means for quickly collecting the votes from the
various states. It was recognized that during the time required for
electors to travel to Washington, that the national conditions could
change. That is the reason electors where given the option of
changing their votes. But know this: The SPIRIT of the Constitution
has always demanded that the electors represent the Will of the People
back home. Now, in our modern age, the instantaneous collection of
the popular votes is a reality unforeseeable by the Founding Fathers.
Because one-person-one-vote-fairly-counted is now possible, and is
closest to being the TRUE REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC envisioned by the
Founding Fathers, the Electoral College System is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

H. Our Police State. Law enforcement, by the SPIRIT of the
Constitution, has those agencies and their members working for The
People—NOT being the Gestapo of Government or those therein.
Therefore, law enforcement shall be deferential to each and every law-
abiding citizen, and when they aren't, such shall have no legal
authority to act to enforce anything—badges and guns not withstanding.

I. Lobbyists. Whenever voting factions ban together in groups to try
to maximize their power beyond one-person-one-vote-fairly-counted,
those acting in the name of ANY group in the USA are trying to make
the USA be a group-dominated governmental system—and that runs counter
to our being a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Therefore, all lobbying is
unconstitutional, and those who persist in promulgating their biased
group ideals, in any public forum, i.e., in the media, are committing
treason.

J. Laws Cast in Stone: The Constitution, by its SPIRIT and content,
requires that all laws passed have the consent of the governed. Since
the ideals of the public change, there are likely laws on the books
which no longer have public support. All of the latter are
unconstitutional, and are thus unenforceable, and without requiring
the assent of any court.

K. Impeachment: The Constitution's primary means for disciplining
those in office who violate some law or standard is far too protective
of such. Public officials are, first and foremost, employees of the
PEOPLE. The SPIRIT of the Constitution demands that any public
official or public employee can be fired from their job for blatantly
violating any provision of the Constitution, or for violating the
civil rights of a single law-abiding citizen! And the firing can be
done by the citizen who has been harmed!

L. The Seniority System. Any "rule" of Congress which runs counter
to the mandate that the USA shall, first-and-foremost, be a
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, is unconstitutional. No REPRESENTATIVE
REPUBLIC can have "leaders" who are more powerful than any lone
member! Since "incumbents" would tend to have more power, having TERM
LIMITS is a mandate of the SPIRIT of the Constitution!

M. Socialism and Communism. Any political discussion which has the
aim of forcing a portion of the population to be the SLAVES of any
other portion is giving the power to the strongest in numbers. The
SPIRIT of the Constitution demands that the vast majority of the
Citizens, not just the simple majority, be treated fairly at all
times. That important distinction precludes allowing government to
have the power to take assets from the rich and then to distribute
such to those desiring a free lunch. Socialism and Communism are so
diametrically opposed to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and to
the free capitalist system that made our country great, that any
celebrity or public official using any public forum to try to advance
Socialist or Communist ideas shall be guilty of capital treason!

N. Endorsements of Candidates for Public Office: The Constitution
demands that the USA be as close to a functioning REPRESENTATIVE
REPUBLIC as possible. Any candidate for public office, who garners
enough support to win election because of the endorsements of
celebrities or of anyone, past, present or future in public office is
being BLACKMAILED to look more favorably on those who endorsed that
person than on the population, in general, to be represented.
Therefore, the SPIRIT of the Constitution makes it a felony for any
celebrity or public official to use their power to get preferential
treatment from the person who gets elected.

Mr. Smith, the above is a fair sampling of how truly unconstitutional
most of what has been done by governments in the USA—local, state and
federal—actually is. >>> My NEW Constitution greatly increases the
power and the civil liberties of individuals, while absolutely
stripping the unjustified power of any group to control the outcome of
anything! <<< The present Constitution, with great concepts dispersed
throughout, was a most WEAK document—primarily because such never
realized that the personnel of government could become so selfishly
motivated. Somehow, public officials have come to believe that they
are the KINGS, and the voters are their servants. Know this: Under my
New Constitution, any public official or employee not being
deferential to the People will be fired so quickly, there will be a
breeze and a blur where that person had been.

I invite you to read my little book, The Shortest Distance; Harmony
Through Prosperity, to understand some of my simple and straight-
forward solutions to common socioeconomic problems. If you agree with
what I am doing, I request that you mention my New Constitution to
others you contact. About 85% of that document can be accessed if you
follow the thread back in time at Political Forum. My Google "handle"
is NoEinstein. Searching New Constitution of the United States of
America should also yield results. I wish you well in most of your
political objectives.

Very truly yours,

John A. Armistead
Author and Patriot

__________

On Apr 8, 7:00 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Republicans and conservatives argue that a third party campaign on your part would ensure President Obama's reelection, a scenario I don't think is all that credible. If Romney loses it will be because most people simply don't like him, don't trust him, and don't want him anywhere near the Oval Office.
> ...
> "In short, Republicans need to be taught a lesson, one they will never forget. By disdaining the substantial and growing libertarian wing of the GOP, and ignoring the desire for peace on the part of the larger public, they have earned nothing but defeat. You have said you are trying to save the Republican party, but it's too late for that: what's needed now is for someone to save the country from the GOP."An Open Letter to Ron PaulbyJustin Raimondo, April 06, 2012
> Dear Ron,
> A lot of my readers are big fans of yours: on those rare but pungent occasions when I have criticized you, I've gotten lots of "blowback" in the comments section and in emails sent directly to my inbox. Whenever I praised you, I've enjoyed a veritable avalanche of favorable feedback. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with non-libertarians who praise you to the skies.Manypeople beyond the narrow confines of the libertarian movement are watching your campaign with great interest, and rooting for you especially those who are concerned about our foreign policy ofperpetual war. A lot of these people are not actually registered Republicans – although some have registered just to be able to vote for you – and that appears to be part of the problem.
> You've capturedthe youth votein practically every contest, while losing among the older set and among hardcore Republican voters. In short, the demographic you do best in winning over is the least likely to be able to vote in a closed Republican primary. I would estimate that roughly two thirds to three quarters of your constituency is outside the ranks of the GOP. In view of these realities, I have a question:
> What is the endgame?
> Yes, yes, I know, the campaign iseducating people, building a movement, and it's necessary to take the long view. Yet I also know I am not the only one wondering what will happen in the short term.
> There has been a lot of speculation, not only among your friends and admirers, but also in the media, about the prospect of a "deal." This is not based on anything you have said or done: every public statement coming directly from you has indicated quite the opposite. Listening to what youactually sayin interviews, in response to questions about endorsing Mitt Romney, leads one to conclude it's highly unlikely bordering on downright impossible.
> So what now?
> Look, we don't endorse candidates here at Antiwar.com, for a number of reasons, but I can't ignore the many emails I've gotten from my readers, who are wondering about the answer to that question.
> It's been exciting, even for a non-participant like me, to watch as youmobilizethousandsatralliesallacrossthecountry, cheering your call to dismantle the Empire and bring the troops home. You were the voice ofthe majorityduring the debates, calling for getting out of Afghanistan immediately – not in a year or two or three,notconditionalon the generals' diktat, butnow, with no conditions or excuses. That's a major reason why you have inspired many people to get involved who would never have considered supporting a Republican candidate for any office, let alone President of the United States.
> Yet, as the primaries wind down, and Romney gets closer to his seemingly inevitable victory, we are hearing,time and again, that certain individuals high up in your campaign are trying to make some sort of dubious deal.Business Insiderby Bob Schiefferabout an endorsement is enough to convince me of that not that I needed all that much convincing.
> On the other hand, the last sentence in the quote above is completely accurate: after Tampa, you do have to go somewhere. And the movement you inspired wants to know where you are taking them: is it only as far as Tampa, or will you go all the way and launch a third party campaign?
> "You don't have to be a math genius to know that it is going to be very hard for us to get to Tampa with 1,144 delegates," says your campaign manager, Jesse Benton. "Short of Dr. Paul being the nominee, there would be a substantial price for us to throw our support behind someone else."
> I don't know what Benton considers "substantial," in this context, but I can't imagine what the Romney camp could possibly offer you in exchange for an endorsement, and neither can theBusiness Insider: their piece lists a number of scenarios – the promise of a cabinet position for Rand Paul, a speaking slot in Tampa, concessions on the party platform – and then dismisses each and every one.
> If I were 76 years old, I know I wouldn't be sprinting around the country making speeches and tirelessly spreading the message of liberty: I'd be sitting on my deck, taking it easy, watching somebody else cut my lawn. But you're in much better shape than I am, and besides that I can see you'reclearlyenjoying yourself– especially thecrowds of young peoplewho cheer you wherever you go.
> The fun doesn't have to end in Tampa: if you decide to run an independent campaign for the White House – a strategy some of your supporters arealready urgingon you – your celebration of liberty and peace can continue right on up until November, and beyond. Because a third party candidacy will leave a legacy, a lasting monument to your campaign and the movement it created: a viable third party alternative to the twin parties ofwarandBig Government.
> Polls show you getting as much as 17 percent of the vote in a three-way race – and those are just the starting numbers. It's a long way until November, and a lot can happen:another economic crash,another war, another federalpower grabso egregious it makes the PATRIOT Act seem like a mild precursor.
> Republicans and conservatives argue that a third party campaign on your part would ensure President Obama's reelection, a scenario I don't think is all that credible. If Romney loses it will be because most peoplesimply don't like him, don't trust him, and don't want him anywhere near the Oval Office.
> Yet even if it's true your third party run would cost Romney the election, then isn't it clear the Republicans deserve to lose? In the face of overwhelming public opposition to their warmongering, the other three GOP presidential contenders have relentlessly advocated escalating our overseas commitments: all three haveexplicitlythreatenedtogo to warwith Iran. Far from listening toyour warningsabout the dangers inherent in such a position, it's clear they have nothing but contempt for yourforeign policy views. Nor have they made any significant concessions on the domestic front: they're allbig spenders,Big Government"conservatives," and if they ever got into office they would continue along the same path.
> In short, Republicans need to be taught a lesson, one they will never forget. By disdaining the substantial and growing libertarian wing of the GOP, and ignoring the desire for peace on the part of the larger public, they have earned nothing but defeat. You have said you are trying tosavethe Republican party, but it's too late for that: what's needed now is for someone to save the country from the GOP.
> Yes, the Democrats also pose amajor threatto liberty and peace, but the Republicans, I would argue, pose a much deadlier menace because their leaders and much of their base areunabashed militaristsand dogged opponents of the Constitution. When it  comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, the Obama administration is just as bad if not worse, but the difference is rhetorical: the Republicans openly proclaim their intent to continue and escalate our policy of permanent warfare, and takegreat pridein their willingness to throw the Bill of Rights overboard in the name of an endless "war on terrorism." Obama, on the other hand, is careful to sugar-coat his authoritarianism and belligerent foreign policy in terms of "liberal" bromides and appeals to "pragmatism."
> The best thing that could happen would be for the GOP to split, with your supporters hiving off, leaving the GOP remnant to become a primarily southern-based regional party. This is their future, in any event, in spite of your energetic efforts to "save" them. Unfortunately – for them and for us – they don't want to be saved.
> In looking at the Ron Paul web sites, of which there are several, and speaking with a number of activists, I've encountered the following argument against taking the third party route: the Paulians, they say, are in this for the very long term. They mean to take over the GOP at the local level, and eventually dominate it at the national level. OneAmericans Elect" nomination. Yes, I know the whole "Americans Elect" operation seems dubious on the face of it, but they qualified for ballot status in 35 states and counting. The "Ron Paul Draft" is already the top-vote getter in the Americans Elect nomination process, which runs through early May, with more than double the number of votes of the nearest competitor.
> In fact, Americans Elect does not require candidates to accept their nomination untilafterthey win their Internet primary (held in late June). Throughout May and June, you can expect your supporters to campaign for your nomination as the Americans Elect candidate, regardless of what you do right now.
> There is also the independent option, which means getting on the ballot in all fifty states via petition, like Ross Perot did – but that seems prohibitively expensive.
> Ron, I know you're out there speaking to huge crowds –10,000 at UCLA, even as I write – and how thrilled you must be by this kind of reception. And I know you're remembering the time when those crowds amounted to a few dozen, at most – and I imagine how gratified you must feel. Finally, the pro-peace pro-liberty camp is making some progress – but it doesn't have to end in Tampa.  Please consider carrying the banner of peace and liberty all the way to November and beyond – because the future of the country, and the peace of the world, depends on it.
> Sincerely,
> Justin Raimondo
> April 5, 2012http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/04/05/an-open-letter-to-ron-paul/

--
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.