Dear Folks: Two years ago I saw the "fix" the USA would be in with
Barack Obama… President. By CONSTITUTIONAL standards, that Manchurian
Candidate has never been President, because Felons (or those guilty of
high crimes and misdemeanors) are prohibited from holding office. To
get elected, Obama promised $100.00 'energy cost' checks to the
voters. That constituted a mass CRIMINAL buying-of-votes—a clear
disqualification to hold office. Our corrupt Chief Justice, John G.
Roberts, Jr., was quite alright with swearing-in a man to be President
without taking into account that Obama had said on numbers of
occasions that …"The Constitution erred by stating limits to
government rather than stating the powers of government to make…
redistributive changes (socialism)." Since socialism is the anti-
thesis of a Representative Republic—as in our free enterprise nation—
Obama was disqualified to be President. But Roberts was all smiles as
he acquiesced to the notion of changing the USA into a socialist
nation. NOTE: Changing our TYPE of government isn't something
Congress can vote on. It requires a revamping of the Constitution,
tantamount to forming a new nation, completely unlike what the
founding fathers had envisioned.
As the 2008 Democratic Party Convention date drew closer, people like
Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Colin Powel, and Jimmy Crater made their
"pivotal" late endorsements. Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Larry
King, and dozens of celebrities did the same thing, to use their
'media power' to slant our weak political processes. That has been…
"how things are done" for generations… Here is what my New
Constitution says:
"It shall be a felony for any government official or employee, or any
celebrity or media idol—past or present—to publicly endorse or
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or job.
Exhibiting ideological bias in a job terminates the employment.
Candidates for public office shall be disqualified for soliciting new
voter registrants; and no campaign shall aid or organize the
transportation of voters to the polls."
Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton (and husband Bill Clinton) were
clearly taken aback when Obama selected Joe Biden to be Vice
President. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton made shifts to the Obama
side at the convention, when what they should have done was to point
out that Obama isn't even an American! The force of DEMOCRACY was on
Hillary's side, but she chose not to use it. Why? Because she
expected Obama would choose her to be Vice President. Obama had
visited with the Clintons in her NYC senate offices. Deals were made
to be sure Hillary would not insist that her supporters NOT vote for
Obama under any circumstances.
Bill Richardson was considered to be on Obama's "short list" for Vice
President. His smiles disappeared after the convention when talking
about the Democratic Party Ticket: Obama and Biden. Note: Soliciting
glowing endorsements with promises of government jobs, is something
Obama did at every turn, and that is CRIMINAL bribery! Of course, one
cannot expect the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to care about
bribery, because most of that court's decisions… are determined by the
BRIBE they each accepted from the President who nominated them, to
NEVER vote counter to the God-damned ideology of that President.
Every member of the US Supreme Court is guilty of accepting their JOB
in exchange for voting along party lines!! Here is what my New
Constitution says:
"Article III:
Section 1: The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as the House establishes. Its major duty is to
interpret laws. It has no power to command enforcement of any of its
rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt
laws. Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New
Constitution. They shall perform their duties as individuals, never
as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor
from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of
such. Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal
executive or legislative office. The President shall nominate new
justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on
good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years. The President,
or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any
nominee. Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect,
high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable
nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office. Such
shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments,
yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly. They shall
make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution—never on
their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel
shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters
nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices aren't
royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently
superior to public macro-consensus. They shall not be chambered
lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress
in a style that differentiates them from the People. They shall not
socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the
Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall they attend
State of the Union Addresses or similar events. The Public shall not
stand for entering or exiting judges or justices who shall be
addressed only as: judge or justice. Judges and justices not
respecting such provisions, or who exhibit excessive arrogance or
pomposity on the job shall be removed. Sessions of all trials shall
begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: "The justice system is
on trial." All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for
one year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall
not—on their own—reconsider such issue. Courtrooms shall be devoid of
gavels, seals, flags and oppressive art, and no design feature nor
process shall imply that judges or justices represent government or
respond patly or collectively. It is TREASON for a judge or justice
to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy."
The following essay relates to the above drama. If any of you are
interested, read my recently published book, "The Shortest Distance;
Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B. & N.). — John A. Armistead
— Patriot
8/27/08
CLINTON GETS UPSTAGED BY REMARKS OF ONE OF HER DELEGATES.
Last night, I was watching CNN's coverage of the Democratic
Convention. The expected highlight, Tuesday, was the long anticipated
speech of a "defeated" Hillary Clinton. If you will recall… following
the botched-up primaries, Clinton—for whatever reason—put aside her
year long differences with Obama and endorsed him. She seemed to be
doing so because she thinks that the "party's goals" are more
important than her goals had been. Her most eloquent speech, last
night, was better delivered than most speeches which I can remember—
not just her speeches, anyone's. Mainly, that's because such seemed
to be coming from "some part" of her curious heart. Her husband and
daughter, watching in the audience, looked to be as touched as I was.
And most who listened, including the commentators, were, too.
Of all those who were shown on camera during the speech, Michelle
Obama had the most poker face. She had probably heard, as had those
following "the news", what the outline of the Clinton's speech likely
included. From the Obamas' and the Democrat's positions, those
18,000,000 voters AGAINST Barack Obama, who were FOR Hillary Clinton
must somehow be delivered to Barack on a silver platter, or he won't
be elected President.
The interesting lead-in Speech by the former Governor of Virginia
showed more of Ted Kennedy's hopes and dreams. Still, there's a huge
piece of the "suitable to be President" pie that must be found.
Michelle Obama knows that her husband falls short of Clinton as a
speaker. And though Michelle is an attorney, her own speech Monday
night didn't approach the power of Clinton's, either. Somehow, the
oft-repeated fact that the Obamas came from "poor backgrounds" just
isn't cutting-it as the link that Barack Obama needs to "connect" with
the rural blue collar voters. It's difficult to connect with those
whom Obama so offended with his "guns and religion" remarks during the
primaries.
I recorded Clinton's speech, but turned off the VCR soon afterward. I
continued to listen to the post speech comments, and I looked at the
teary eyes—mostly of the women who had listened from the audience.
CNN was given word that there was a Black lady delegate, in the
audience, who should be interviewed about Clinton's speech. Suzanne
Malveaux asked that lady—who looked to be in her forties—what she
thought about it. While Suzanne held the microphone, the shy but
clearly articulate lady began to show more HEART and more SOUL than
had Clinton, herself, in the speech!
The lady was wearing a white tee shirt with big printed letters. I
was so affected by the lady's deep emotions that I could only
concentrate on her face. Though on camera, she didn't look at it.
She just kept turning her eyes toward the left as if torn to say what
is really in her heart. But say it she did!
That Black Lady is one of the delegates for Hillary. She was asked
who she will vote for in November. "Not McCain…" Then, she
summarized the long road that Blacks have had to travel just to get to
vote in this country. Yet, her tone seemed to imply that it isn't
likely that she will be voting for Obama. At one point she said: "…
two more days", as if she would be giving Barack Obama two more days
to convince her. But she almost bit her lip at the prospect. Then,
she said, "…this year, my relatives will have to call me to go vote.
In past years I've called them to go vote."
No words of mine can summarize the POWER of the genuine emotions which
that fine lady was expressing! Almost in awe, she kept mentioning how
"presidential" Hillary Clinton was as she spoke. Relatively speaking,
that meant the lady believes in her heart that Hillary Clinton is more
presidential than Barack Obama. She concluded her tearful, choking
words by saying , "… resume; his resume. No Harvard graduate, right
out of school, gets hired to be the CEO of a major corporation…" At
that Suzanne thanked the wonderful Black lady. Anderson Cooper was so
moved by what he heard, that he suggested that the same lady be
interviewed after Barack makes his acceptance speech, Thursday night,
to see if such speech changes the lady's mind.
One sign of just how much trouble Obama's campaign is in, is the fact
that the millions in the likely TV viewing audience won't satisfy
Obama's ego, and his desire to bask in the limelight. That's the
reason he has chosen to deliver his speech before a packed-in, or
trucked-in, 80,000 person audience in the new Denver football
stadium. When Obama campaigned… in Germany, people went "Wow!" that
20,000 showed up to listen. Having a large crowd confirms the
speaker, does it not? Probably not as much as Obama is needing to
have his Manchurian candidacy be confirmed. Try as he will, Obama
could never speak with the genuine passion of Hillary Clinton. As he
reads from the teleprompter, his face will be the same dead-pan
expression of latent anger with which he has delivered every other
speech he has ever made in his life. So, his speech will fall short
of that of Hillary Clinton.
About 10% of Blacks are true, color-blind, members of the human race
and independent thinkers. Those don't need to have a figurehead Black
like Obama be elected President to feel confirmed. They are perfectly
well confirmed just by doing what they think is right—even if that
goes against what most of their race are doing. Charles Barkley, the
basketball great, was interviewed at the convention last night.
Because of the poverty issues among Blacks that need to be addressed,
Barkley is considering running for Governor of Alabama. But he says
he'll probably do so as an independent, because… "the Democrats and
Republicans are too corrupt."
Folks, Charles Barkley knows exactly what I have been telling you for
many months: Moving away from the two major parties is our only hope!
As long as "the game" is party-against-party, there will always be 50%
losers. Supporters of Obama should realize the peril that the USA
will be in if we elect a "Harvard graduate just out of school to be
the CEO" of America!
The best course for all thinking Americans is to eschew both major
parties and to vote—with a clear conscious—for the LIBERTARIAN
candidates! It's been said that "Imitation is the highest form of
flattery." Last night, Obama and the Democrats copied my slogan
below… But I was the FIRST to say:
Be it known: "A New Constitution is the only 'change' that we need!"
Pass it on!
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Armistead
AKA — NoEinstein — on Google's sci.physics
>
On Feb 5, 12:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Dear plainolamerican: Hi! My detailed handwriting analysis indicates
> Reagan's character. If you happen to disagree with a "White
> House" (not always just Reagan) decision,that doesn't reflect on his
> character. With Reagan, what you saw is what you got! — John A.
> Armistead — Patriot
>
> On Feb 3, 8:11 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Reagan never compromised his
> > principles!
> > ----
> > LMAO!!!
>
> > Reagan was a liar and an idiot. The Iran-Contra Affair and amnesty for
> > illegals in the USA is proof enough.
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:38 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.
