Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On May 17, 11:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID THEIR BEST

When the US Constitution was being written, it got the devoted, best
efforts of the aptly-named ‘founding fathers’. None of those men had
ever helped to write a constitution, before. But because most of them
had either experienced, or been told about, oppressive governments,
they knew they wanted something different for America. They certainly
didn’t want some sort of kingdom with a ruling monarch.

The desire for freedom and new opportunities was the motive for most
of those who emigrated to America. Freedom can best be guaranteed if
the ordinary men and women—who care about those things—can have a say-
so in what their government does. Without citizen input, America
could evolve to be oppressive…

In small groups, simple democratic votes can yield fair results. But
when the population is widely spread—as was the case during the
pioneer era—the only practical APPROXIMATION of a fair democracy was
to have ‘representative’ men go to the capital to vote for their
constituents. Ideally, those representatives would be sufficiently
well attuned regarding how their constituents think, that the
representatives could vote like the people would vote if the people
could be apprised of the issues; hear the pro and con arguments; and
then cast their votes.

Before America was born, the original thirteen state governments, or
councils, were the governing bodies of those living within their
boundaries. In some ways, the constitutional convention was like a
meeting of men from thirteen separate countries. Though there were
major common issues of concern among those citizens, some of the
states felt that the rights and privileges that those therein held
dear, might not get respected if we had a true democracy. States
having small populations feared that larger states would control its
ports; impose tariffs or taxes unfairly; or disparage the “right” to
have slaves.

The only way to appease those apprehensive state delegates was to
bring into parity the population and land area issues by… adding a non
democratic governing body… the US Senate. It was felt that if the two
houses of Congress could be made to hash-things-out between them, that
the likelihood that a small state would get unfair treatment would be
lessened.

Having a US Senate was the “plum” that allowed America to be formed.
But that same branch of government is the primary cause for the
growing, and perhaps fatal, decline in our civil rights; decline in
our trust of our fellow man; and decline in our control of our
government. From the get-go America has not had a functioning
democracy. Yet, the spirit of the Constitution requires that the
people have control over their government so that fair treatment can
be assured. Any new process of government that is fairer for all of
the citizens would surely have been embraced by the founding fathers.

Those men were smart enough to know that changes to the Constitution
should be allowed. Yet, they didn’t want their much-labored-over
document to be too easily modified—at least not without careful
thought. The too great difficulty in modifying the Constitution is
another flaw that the founding fathers left in the document…

A third flaw that I’ll mention is the “presumption” that those we
choose as our representatives and senators will be patriots who place
America’s interests, and those of America’s diverse citizenry, above
their own selfish interests. Nowhere in the Constitution is it
mentioned, or even implied to be acceptable, that we have… political
parties as intermediaries between the citizens and our government.

Another incredible flaw was that the founding fathers let the two
houses of Congress… make their own rules, and determine their own
procedures. An entire BOOK could be written about how… “the
congressional rules” have squeezed DEMOCRACY out of the picture,
entirely, so that we now have a government run by career politicians
who are our elected dictators, NOT our elected representatives!

The founding fathers could not have foreseen how elitist a person is
if he or she gets elected to public office. The media dotes over
political office holders so much, is it any wonder that we’re being
“served” by those mainly interested in “fighting for” their own places
in history?

Senator John McCain was interviewed, yesterday, regarding the sad news
about Senator Ted Kennedy’s health. McCain said, “Senator Kennedy is
one of our most effective senators.” Why is there such a thing as an
“effective” senator? That’s because democracy is nowhere to be seen
in “the big picture” in Washington. A senator may be considered
“effective” if he can make persuasive speeches. He is also seen as
“effective” if he can form alliances with others in the “smoke-filled-
rooms”. Those allow some “effective” senators to sway votes beyond
the 1% influence that the Constitution grants to Kennedy and the
others. If ANYONE is more “effective”—or has more influence—the
representative form of government envisioned by the founding fathers
is… out-the-window.

Hillary Clinton has committed supporters (like me) who will never vote
for Obama. We couldn’t care less about unifying the Democratic Party
to beat John McCain. We just want FAIRNESS in government to be
evident in this country. I’ve been wanting fairness—or government
more closely attuned to a pure democracy—passionately enough to spend
much of the last twelve years writing a New Constitution.

Our follow-the-rules inclinations, has gotten us into dire straights.
When pre-primary polls showed Clinton to be the front-runner, she was
being polite when she agreed that the rushed-ahead primaries in
Florida and Michigan won’t count. Little did she know that racism
would soon enter the picture. Such was manifested in the block votes
of the 90 plus percent of blacks for Obama. Those block votes didn’t
change, regardless of his many character flaws that have been brought
to light.

Obama’s primary character flaw: He won’t fight fair. Principles of
DEMOCRACY take precedence over the unconstitutional rules of the DNC;
and even over the unconstitutional Democratic Party, itself, with all
of its cancerous strings throughout government. A polite person like
Hillary Clinton, can’t be denied her constitutional rights just
because she was wishing to avoid seeming greedy. But now that Obama
has shown himself to be an inveterate scoundrel, of course she’s
correct to insist that the voters in FL and MI get fairly counted.

The main error of the DNC, and of Obama’s tribe of crooks, is their
having put off resolving those FL and MI primaries. That has allowed
Obama to make backroom agreements with as many corrupt super delegates
as he can. Large numbers of voters make their decisions, not by
voting for the best candidate, but by voting for the one who seems
most likely to “win”. That’s why denying Clinton those FL and MI
votes, early, has allowed Obama to hang on by his nails. And the
media has used her for their doormat. If the media had a thread of
decency, it would place DEMOCRACY above the shameful “Ballot Bowl”,
and its ilk. The former play-by-play debacle, and all the others,
lets the media, and their rag-tag bags of “experts”, tinker with the
lives and futures of every American.

Two weeks ago, Obama promised Oregon that he would make his “victory
speech” there, yesterday. Instead, the super-delegate count hasn’t
given him the nomination. So… Obama addressed a somewhat somber crowd
in Iowa. That speech was condescending to Clinton. It referred to
her in ways that keep implying that the nomination race is over. But
Obama is just being his same old delusional self. There aren’t enough
“Blacks and eggheads” in this country for Obama to defeat McCain! The
only chance Obama has of winning is if he can dupe Clinton’s
supporters into believing that he will unite America.

Surely, Obama knows that two thirds of Clinton’s supporters won’t vote
for him if he’s the nominee. Therefore, Obama can’t win! Hillary
Clinton should consider the following “Plan B”: Run as an independent
in the general election. No huge advertising is needed. She already
has the voters to place second in a three-way race with Obama and
McCain.

What that will do is to throw the election into the House of
Representatives. If the democratic house doesn’t pick Clinton, she
has “Plan C”. The founding fathers never knew that technology would
allow holding a run-off election in a single day. Because the
political parties are anti-democracy, and thus against the spirit of
the Constitution, then taking votes in the party-tainted House of
Representatives would be counter to the ideals of fairness and
democracy on which this country was founded. No court can rule
against DEMOCRACY twice in eight years, and do so with impunity.
Those justices who favored “schedules” over Democracy in 2000 are
teetering of being punished, retroactively, after the New Constitution
is ratified by 75% of those voting. So, Congress, or that cursed
Court, should allow a one day run-of election—as is used in every
close state election—to decide McCain vs. Clinton. If those bastards
don‘t do so, the PEOPLE must insist—as in a revolution. Don’t screw
with democracy in America!

Obama, like McCain, has a penchant for speaking in front of one or
more flags. But no starched and ironed American flag—behind him as he
speaks—can legitimize the campaign of a man whose only motives are
selfish ones. Obama talks about using diplomacy with Hamas. But his
voice is that of a dictator, NOT the voice of a diplomat. 60% of
verbal communication is tonal and visual. On those two Obama flunks
as a diplomat. Obama is too ‘***-sure’ to consider anyone else’s
viewpoint, or to make them believe that he has done so.

After he looses, Barack Obama can write a best seller explaining the
reasons. TIME magazine will probably give him their Man of the Year
award, claiming that he invigorated the nation. In actuality, Obama
would have come closer than any other person in history to destroying
America. And he did so simply by kicking dust in the face of
democracy. Our sometimes tenuous futures in this nation hang on such
happenings.

In the most positive light, please vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for
President of the United States of America!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —



On May 15, 1:45 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

OBAMA TAKES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR GRANTED

While the beleaguered Democratic race for the presidential nomination
goes on, Barack Obama has rolled-down his trademark, Screaming Howard
Dean, ‘rolled-up sleeves’.  The latter sleeve positions were one of
the ways that Obama mimicked, and MOCKED, the hard-working men and
women of America.  Obama has had substantially more success at
attracting people who are naïve, near-sighted, or blind; i.e., those
who favor continuing our failed party-against-party, group-against-
group, and class-against-class contests.  But the latter, perennially
ineffectual, contests have been negating the democratic,
representative form of government we deserve, and which we so
desperately need, again.

Instead of rolled-up sleeves, recently, Obama has been wearing the
more conventional, coat and tie attire of a President of the USA.  He
hopes that by “looking” presidential, he can steam-roll the remaining
undecideds in Kentucky, Oregon, and Puerto Rico.  But mainly he
expects that enough weak-minded super delegates will get on his Pied
Piper Bandwagon to give him… the fateful “numbers” that he needs.
Those RATS will follow him out of town.  But it would be best for
America if they would follow him out of this country!

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Hillary Clinton, recently.  When
Blitzer asked Hillary about her daughter, Chelsea, Hillary started to
cry.  Those were most telling tears.  They were tears that should TUG
at the heart of America!  And they were tears that should separate the
GENUINE candidate from the phony.  Blitzer’s implied question wasn’t
so much about: “Don’t you have a wonderful daughter.”  It was about
having a wonderful daughter who is putting her HEART and SOUL into
having her mother be elected President of the United States of
America.  And it is about having Chelsea’s noble efforts be wasted… in
a fundamentally flawed political race.

In part, I’m working to have Clinton be elected President, because I
won’t allow some phony, egotistical jerk like Barack Obama to be
disrespectful to a genuine-hearted woman like Hillary Clinton.  He has
been disrespectful to her in the debates, and ever since he made his
first “acceptance speech” after the IOWA caucuses.  And he has been
doing that same thing, more intensely, with every corrupt endorsement,
and with every new look at… ‘the numbers’ that come along.  Obama’s
being Black does NOT justify his being discourteous to any woman in
America!!!  And I don’t think most Blacks believe that it does!

When Obama told a crowd in Oregon that he will make his ’victory’
speech from there this next Tuesday, the last-straw-of-a-chance that
there is decency anywhere inside of Barack Obama got burned.  Though
Obama has won only one state in months, he thinks that it’s a forgone
conclusion that voters in Oregon are naïve, near-sighted or blind.  By
his words of premature celebration-in-the-end-zone, Obama shows that
he is UNSPORTSMANLIKE, inconsiderate of WOMEN, and he is taking the
citizens of Oregon and of America for granted!!!

Obama’s words have a more tyrannical sound now that President Bush and
John McCain are ignoring Clinton.  They attack Obama as though he is
the presumptive nominee.  And that is most inconsiderate of her,
because the race is still continuing.  Jay Leno and the others who
make for-pay humor keep on berating Clinton, while she clings to the
hope that our failed political system and societal systems will show
her the fairness that she so rightly deserves.  There’s something
fundamentally wrong in America, when THE most qualified person for the
Oval Office gets belittled by high-paid news commentators and by
shallow-mined comedians like Jay Leno.  Is there no chivalry in
America?

With his normal bias, Wolf Blitzer asked Clinton if she’s staying in
the race.  By that question, asked hundreds of times daily, the askers
are being inconsiderate of Clinton.  Of course she wants to win.  But
she doesn’t have the “luxury” that Obama has to presume to win.
“Right is on her side; but WRONG has a few more delegates.”

The founding fathers wanted us to have the closest thing to a
democracy.  But in the 18th century it wasn’t practical to keep all of
the citizens informed; count the widely spread votes; and communicate
the results to the capital.  In national elections and referenda,
electors would represent and relay the results of the various
contests.  Our founding fathers would be appalled that we still have
the Electoral College system!  That’s because present technology
allows the popular vote to be tallied, quickly.  At no point did the
Constitution ever intend that ‘approximations’ of the votes of the
people—as by using state apportioned electors—should take precedence
over the accurately counted popular vote!

The fatally flawed, sequential primary system allocates a certain
number of delegates to each state in proportion to the states’
populations.  That sounds good if those delegates were the ones
actually voting at the convention.  And if they did so at the same
time.  But the delegates are supposed to be representing those
citizens who did vote.  That not-so-subtle difference makes everyone’s
votes have different degrees of importance.  In a democracy—like this
country doesn’t come close to being—every citizen’s vote must carry
the same weight and importance as any other citizen’s vote.

Suppose two states of equal population have 25 delegates each.  If one
state turns-out twice as many voters as the other, when the delegates
are allocated, the weight or value of the votes in the high-turn-up
state is exactly 50% as important as in the lesser turn-out state.
Folks, THAT is anti-democracy, and is thus unconstitutional by the
SPIRIT of the Constitution!  The Electoral College is also
unconstitutional by the SPIRIT of the Constitution.  The founding
fathers would never allow any ‘best approximation’ system of vote-
taking to hold sway over the actual, accurately-tallied, popular vote
taken without regard for where those votes were cast.  If a thousand
people in Alaska want something, those votes should carry the same
weight as a thousand people in California who do.

The reason no one before me has corrected the glaring deficiencies in
our Constitution is because: “A politician’s power can be most evident
in a flawed system.”  Those desiring nearly dictatorial powers, like
Barack Obama desires, don’t want a democracy.  A democracy rightly
allocates the power to the PEOPLE.  So, what glory can a politician
have, if the people get the credit?  Folks, THAT is a justification
for ratifying my New Constitution!  I have taken the ego component out
of the decision-making processes!

It’s likely that Barack Obama’s ego is swelling even as I write.
Imagine how bloated it will be if… “Because he’s Black, and that
changes things…” gets him elected to be President.  But… “The bigger
they are, the harder they fall.”  Obama’s ego—and his delusional
“entitlement” to be President—will cause the biggest failed presidency
in this country’s history.  George W. Bush will look like a SAINT by
comparison!

The American people are largely oblivious to the threats against
democracy in this country.  But unless democracy can be restored as
the foundation of this nation, corrupt influences will dominate every
area of our existence, and more and more.  Even ‘fighting dirty’ won’t
protect us from the looming dangers of terrorism and wars.  But if we
will start PLAYING FAIR, and being more equitable with ourselves and
with other nations, our hope of surviving, as a nation, past the next
millennium will improve.  A thing as simple as fair play can protect
us by improving America’s image in the world.

With each new communication and transportation advance, planet Earth
shrinks in size.  We Earthlings are all riding in the same boat.  If
we row together we can be saved.  But not if we willingly let the
tainted rules and processes lock us to a failed status quo.  The
“changes” best for America, are the changes needed to unite us.  A New
Constitution is poised for that purpose!

Please elect Hillary Rodham Clinton President of the United States Of
America!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —





On May 14, 11:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

JOHN EDWARDS GOES TO JAIL.

The New Constitution will be a bastion for democracy and fair play in
America!  A democracy isn’t about who you know, or how influential
they think that they are.  It isn’t about 'networking' to get some
leverage in an obviously corrupt system of government.  And it isn’t
about pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes of the electorate to try to use
them as pawns for one’s own selfish motives.

Barack Obama will look STUNNING in an orange prison uniform as he
gives interviews while looking between closely spaced steel bars.
Folks, screwing with our democracy is a treasonable offense!

Yesterday, John Edwards made an endorsement of “his ideal” for
President.  By that act, Edwards is ‘influence peddling’.  He, like
Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, Bob Casey and so many others, has jumped
on the teeter totter to try to counter each and every increase in
momentum that Hillary Clinton gets.  Those men are selfishly bent on
padding their own nests.  With each endorsement that Obama gets, he
dilutes his might-have-been devotion to work for the best interests of
the electorate.  Instead, he must now work for the whims of those to
whom he is beholden.

A good friend of mine told me that, while in office, Senator John
Edwards of NC wasn’t very good at his job.  Apparently, Edwards
dropped out of Congress just in time to avoid going down in defeat in
NC.  JFK was a well-liked

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.