Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On May 21, 11:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


SENATORIAL CANDIDATES, SAVE YOUR MONEY!

Comedians can make fortunes by poking-fun at politicians. And many
politicians get themselves elected by making the opposition look like
the laughing stock. Quite often, the voters will choose those who are
the most interesting characters as their representatives and
senators. How else can you explain the long tenure of Senator Robert
Byrd of West Virginia? Is having ‘fiddling talent’ a justifiable
reason for electing someone to be a senator? Probably not. But
having the “appeal” to get one’s mug in the national media as often as
possible, “reassures” the voting public that ‘their’ representative or
senator has more power than the rest. That very assumption—constantly
reinforced by the irresponsible media—slaps at the face of democracy.

The senatorial race in Minnesota is drawing attention, there, for the
first time since former MN governor, Jesse Ventura, hammed-it-up in
the wrestling ring. Al Franken—that genius at twisting words—can’t
decide whether he would rather have us laugh or cry… regarding the
decline in our government and in our lives. Because very smart people
tend to be more moral than those less blessed, if all of our elected
officials for the past century had been as smart as Franken, we would
probably be in fine shape, now. Instead, as many as 85% of those
polled say they are dissatisfied with the direction this country is
headed. So, Al Franken will have his work cut out for him, if he’s
elected.

CNN’s Larry King values the celebrity of Jesse Ventura, sufficiently,
to regularly invite Ventura to be a guest on his ‘Larry King Live’.
Ventura is one of those unpredictable characters whom the viewing
public will watch, expecting to be entertained. ‘Maury Povich’ draws
a particular segment of the viewing public to watch those marital-un-
bliss, cat fights. It seems that wrestling and Povich’s show have a
common thread: For-pay, put-on fights. We’re a nation that is longing
for a fight… But most are contented to let our various sports and
recreational pursuits substitute for actually coming to blows,
ourselves.

Jesse Ventura surprised Larry King by saying that he, Ventura, will
likely be registering, soon, to vie for that open senate seat in MN.
Ventura says he will be running as an independent. To his credit,
Jesse promised his father that he won’t ‘bet his bank account’ to seek
public office. Folks, imagine how much better off this country would
be if no candidate spent more money than the average working American
makes in a single year. Wow! Is their any logic—other than to feed
candidates’ egos—to spend more money getting elected than the jobs
being sought will pay? Of course not!

Barack Obama has raised hundreds of millions of dollars trying to
“win”—by hook-or-by-crook—the Democratic Party’s nomination for
President. Jobs and the economy are major issues. Tell me, how can
people who are in need, be “served” by routing ANY of that money into
the hands of the media—whose only ‘need’ is greed? Is it any wonder
that the TV network bosses choose to support the candidate(s) who will
be spending the most money on advertising? Ask yourselves: Is it
right that the amount of money available—rather than the worthiness of
the candidates—gets to decide who can win public office?

Democracy would best be served by putting all contributions into a
common pot and allocating equal funding for each candidate’s ads.
“Winning” by fund-raising is like winning by having a tug-of-war.
Democracy must never pit the strong against the weak. My New
Constitution will GUARANTEE that every registered voter gets a fair
and equal say-so in government. And such will be irrespective of how
persuasive they speak, or how much money they can spare to BUY the
candidate of their choice.

Some of you readers have heard me explain that I’m an expert
graphologist. Last May, TIME Magazine showed a sample of the, then,
six top candidates for President. I commented that ‘John Edwards
can’t be bought’. Right after the West Virginia landslide for
Clinton, Edwards combed his hair and endorsed Obama… I wondered if I
had been wrong last May. Soon, I realized that Edwards wasn’t
‘bought’. He just sold-out for selfish reasons alone. Edwards would
love to get the number two spot on the Democratic ticket. What better
way would there be for him to do so than by, possibly, causing the
decisive rush of the super delegates to Obama? If Edwards had caused
such a rush (but he didn‘t), ‘fate’ might, subsequently, have made him
President. Or, perhaps, he would have an inside track for the
nomination in 4 or 8 years.

Another signature that I’ve analyzed, and generally like, is that of
Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer. He is a friendly and conventional-
thinking good-guy. I’ve admired his aura of fair news coverage for
years. He’s seems believable and trustworthy. But lately Schieffer’s
reasoning ability is slipping. I’ve noticed that he keeps stressing
the ‘inevitability’ of an Obama victory—because of the numbers. He
said, yesterday, that we are a nation of rules. And he said,
“Businesses have rules…” Schieffer was reasoning, wrongly, that the
DNC doesn’t have to give-in to pressure by Clinton supporters, like
me, to let Clinton have her fair share of the delegates in FL and MI.
Why can’t Schieffer see that democracy is being raped? And why
doesn’t he care?

For too many Americans, the ‘news’ is limited to what the corrupt news
media will allow to be aired. Since no one has aired my assertions
that our political parties are anti democracy, Schieffer won’t let
such ‘trivia’ make him feel guilty. For a man who made his fortune
‘covering’ politics, is it too much to expect such an insider to admit
that the majority of our system of government is simply screwed-up,
and needs to be scrapped. In my New Constitution, one part of
government that will be scrapped is the entire, anti-democracy branch
known as: The US Senate. Those elitists have screwed-up America long
enough!

Unlike Al Franken, I don’t see anything about the Federal Government
that’s a laughing matter. Bill Mahr is another political ‘comedian’
who has more good ideas than bad. But unfortunately, Bill makes too
much money just by belly-aching about bad government. Otherwise, he
might be more willing to ramrod some of his good ideas.

We all know that this country has an energy deficiency. Instead of
depending on petroleum, we could start increasing ethanol production.
One way to do that—which has repeatedly and unfairly been squelched—is
to allow our farmers to grow HEMP. That ‘weed’ could save us—
economically and politically. Such salvation seems more important
than the possible hurt to some, because of the TRACE of the marijuana
drug in its fibers. My guess is that the oil lobbyists don’t want an
ethanol source to be available that might compete with oil. Didn’t
those five oil executives, seated at that long table in the
congressional hearing room, look like five criminals at, say, the
Nuremberg trial following WWII? The high price of crude oil is the
genre of excuse that oil companies need to keep getting more and more
favorable incentives from government to increase oil exploration and
processing efficiency. But as has always been the case, the public
pays, while the fat cats (and oil company shareholders) keep getting
fatter.

Barack Obama did an acceptable job filling-in for an ailing Senator
Ted Kennedy as a commencement speaker. I’ve never faulted Barack’s
poise as a speaker. But from day one, I have faulted his personality
(influenced by Barack’s high testosterone) that causes him to be too
strong-willed to make a good executive. Strong-willed people tend to
assign authority, begrudgingly. And they won’t allow those under them
to get job satisfaction by using their talents, effectively.

Because Obama has ZERO executive experience, he’s now stressing how he
will use ‘diplomacy’ in foreign relations. Here again, Obama’s
personality is a mismatch. The best diplomats are laid-back, affable
people. When they enter a room they don’t broadcast their delusional
superiority by the strong, level tone of their voice, nor by starring-
down those who are talking. A natural born diplomat is our good-
neighbor-type-President, Jimmy Carter. He can empathize with the
viewpoints of others, while seeking a common issue around which to
build a mutually beneficial accord. Obama totally lacks the ability
to see things from anyone else’s perspective, but his own.

After Senator Tom Daschle brushed-off James Carville’s suggestion that
Clinton’s supporters pay to have the MI primary re held, I knew that
it was Obama’s moral imperative to side with democracy. Yet, his
monumental ego prevented him from doing the right things. For Barack,
if a corrupt and unconstitutional political party system benefits HIM,
he’s all in favor of it. That man has shed no tears at the daily
slights to Clinton. But without those slights, Clinton would be ahead
in the pledged delegates, too.

The time has come for one or more reporters with a modicum of decency
to ask Obama this: “Is it true that you value getting elected more
than you value the principles of DEMOCRACY on which this country was
based? If you disagree, then, why haven’t you insisted that Hillary
Clinton get her fair share of the delegates in Florida and Michigan?”
Unless, and until Barack Obama answers those two question, he will
remain the scourge of the USA.

Mike Huckabee made a genuine Freudian slip when he speculated on the
cause of backstage noise—by saying it was just Obama being defensive.
Mike has already let it be known that he would accept the VP spot
under McCain. Naïve Huckabee would see clearer sailing to his
becoming president, if the “supposed” frontrunner, Obama, is out of
the picture. That ‘humorous’ statement shows just how selfish
Huckabee is.

If there was a ‘threat component’ in Huckabee’s statement, such paled
in comparison to… the ‘threat component’ caused by having the corrupt
media REPEATEDLY show Huckabee making those statements. Quite
obviously, the media is as lacking in good responsibility, as it is in
having any concept whatsoever what its mission should be. ‘Maximizing
the profits of the shareholders’ just won’t cut it as a motive for the
media in a democracy.

Neither Al Franken nor Jesse Ventura can save this country from ruin
by having one of them become a senator from MN. But my New
Constitution—when ratified on a first Tuesday in November by 75% of
those voting—will permanently correct our dysfunctional government.
Additionally, it will place reasonable limits on what are considered
to be ‘accepted’ business practices. But not-to-worry! Having a fair
free enterprise system will cause the MAXIMUM benefits for the maximum
number of people. So, prosperity is looming!

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

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


Handwriting Analysis of Clinton, Obama, McCain and Einstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/eed2bb0cf762e015/6173e270dee543b3?hl=en#6173e270dee543b3


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 betooeasily modified—at least not without careful
thought.  Thetoogreat 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 istoo
...

read more »

.