Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On Jun 9, 9:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SOUND MORAL PRINCIPLES SHOULD TRUMP PETTY ‘RULES’.

The longer someone has been a political insider, the greater is the
likelihood that such person has been corrupted. One ‘escape’ from
implications of corruption, is for the person to simply say that they
had been abiding by this or that rule. While abiding by rules
certainly ‘sounds’ like the noble thing to do, too often, rules run
counter to sound moral principles. In every case, the latter should
override any bad rules which have managed to get made.

Simultaneously, rules can be both the ordering mechanism of
complicated processes, and they can be the destroyers of sound moral
principles. For years the Democratic Party has had these ignoble
‘rules’ saying that it can dictate when states hold their primaries.
But such are a flagrant violation of simple and sound principles of
democracy! Democracy requires that every registered voter shall have
his or her vote carry the same… “weight” as every other voter! The
only way equality of the votes can be achieved is by basing the
outcome of races on the national POPULAR VOTE, and by holding the
votes in the different states on the same day.

Few would doubt that the voters in Iowa—person-for-person—have more
power than the voters in, say, South Dakota. Is America well-served
by having such inequality? No way!

The Democratic Party has allowed states to substitute caucuses for
standard primaries. It’s well known that many people don’t like going
to public meetings. Therefore, caucuses are not representative of a
state’s population as a whole. And that is anti democracy! At
caucuses, the issues facing caucus-goers are open for comment and
discussion. Effectively, caucuses will favor the candidate who has
the better public speakers in attendance. Yet, speaking ability,
alone, doesn’t correlate to, nor does it even approximate, which
person is the better candidate! It just favors the candidate who can
turn out supporters… who are good at speaking in public.

When the number of caucus voters who support each candidate is closely
divided, the majority—if they happen to be the best public speakers—
often elicits responses like this from the minority voters: “Oh, I
suppose I won’t ‘make waves’. I’ll go along with the majority, this
time, so that I can ‘win’, too.” Folks, having ANY open arguments on
election day—during a caucus or otherwise—that can change the opinions
of any voter is flagrantly anti democracy!

Suppose that you are inside your closed voting booth. Just before you
cast your vote for the candidate of your choice, someone squeezes
through the curtain and stands right next to you. They begin giving
you reasons why you should switch your vote. They also tell you that…
“the majority” who are voting in that same place are supporting the
other candidate. Finally, you are convinced to change your vote when
the person says, “Side with the winner; that’s what everyone else is
doing! I ought to know, because I‘ve talked face-to-face with each
person who has voted!” Using those same type anti democracy tactics,
Barack Obama has gotten… “the numbers” to get his party’s nomination
for President. Sad, but true; sad, but true.

The stodgy Democratic Party Rules and Bylaws Committee believed it was
quite OK to… ‘punish’ the voters of FL and MI by reducing the weight
of their votes to ½. Day after day, Obama’s supporters have used
every unfair, and thus anti democracy tactic in their manure pile to
persuade super delegates to “come out” for Obama.

In her ‘concession speech’, Hillary Clinton rightly states—and I
paraphrase: ‘It isn’t OK to discriminate against a Black, or even to
criticize a Black; but it’s quite OK to discriminate against and to
criticize a woman.’ In spite of all of those handicaps, she WON the
popular vote! But she knows that the corrupt media would have seen to
it that she wouldn’t win in November. So, she just shrugged off all
of her slights. Her concession speech sounded very much like she had
been proclaimed the victor. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen
whether any of those 18,000,000 anti-Obama voters care one wit about
who Hillary Clinton is siding with, now.

In the 2000 presidential race, the ‘rule’ saying that the electors
should meet to record their votes for President on such-and-such date,
was viewed by five justices of the US Supreme Court to be more
important than democracy itself. Surely, the processes of government
aren’t so inflexible that the schedules—even the schedule for the
presidential inauguration—couldn’t be shifted by the amount of time
necessary to accurately count all of the votes.

My sister works at the polls. Today, she told me that there is an
election ‘rule’ which prohibits having write-in votes for our
President and Vice President. In SC, “Ol’ Strom” got elected to his
first term as a US Senator via a write-in vote. My father once told
me that he, himself, got a write-in vote for President. In those
days, votes were collected on paper ballots. So, whether or not that
one vote was officially recorded, “someone” must have liked my father
better than he or she liked the… ‘two’ choices for president.

Jesse Ventura thinks there should be a voting button for: NONE OF THE
ABOVE. If he, or anyone else, registered late, the NONE OF THE ABOVE
votes wouldn’t go to the listed candidates. Supposedly, if NONE OF
THE ABOVE won, there would have to be a runoff election. Yet, our
most outmoded Constitution doesn’t allow runoff elections… The
reason: Based on the information that the founding fathers had, it was
assumed that the time required would be too great; and the problem of
information dissemination would be too great. But our founding
fathers didn’t live in this modern era! If they had, they would
insist that elections be based on the popular vote—including any
needed runoff elections.

Various ’rules’ are beginning to constrict our choices for President.
Since Clinton has shown her… true colors, I’m now recommending RON
PAUL for President, and DENNIS KUCINICH for Vice President. Both of
those men probably want the respective jobs. But are they willing to
abandon the “umbrella” of their political parties—however corrupt
those happen to be? Senator Joe Lieberman—whom I had cheered for to
become President in 2004—subsequently, ran as an independent for the
US Senate, and he won. So, I suppose it’s a matter of attitude, and
self-confidence. If “Independent” doesn’t sound catchy enough, Ron
Paul could call his party: the “Revolution Party”!

Having a good person become President, i.e, a person who is light on
strings-attached, and heavy on patriotism, lets the climate be right
so that the American people can vote on a New Constitution. Almost
yearly, the citizens of some country in the world get to do just
that. Surely, there are no ‘rules’ to prevent the will of the
American voters from being heard. If there were such rules, then it
would be time for the American voters to go to their windows and
shout: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this any more!”

With the United Will of the American People—there shall be a way!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


On Jun 7, 7:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

HAVING ‘CHANGE’ MEANS NOT DOING ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’.

The campaign slogan of Barack Obama touts: “Change you can believe
in!”  But any ‘change’ which doesn’t correct our government’s near
total departure from principles of democracy, is missing the most
important thing that needs to be changed!

From the beginning, Obama has had the backing of the Democratic
Party’s leadership.  And that’s contrary to sound principles of
democracy.  If the latter had been adhered to, the party leadership
wouldn’t have taken sides nor would they have played favorites.  In
state-after-state Obama got the ‘block vote’ of 90 plus percent of
Blacks.  Block votes—regardless of the sex, race, color or creed of
those in the block—are anti democracy, plain and simple.  That’s
because voting decisions should be INDIVIDUAL ones—not based on ‘the
consensus’ of any biased group.  The latter should never be allowed to
be substituted for the might-have-been wisdom of those individual
voters!  Nor should voting decisions be based on the subtle, or not so
subtle, endorsements of anyone in the media; in government; nor in the
private sector.  IN A DEMOCRACY, VOTING DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BY EACH
INDIVIDUAL VOTER—WITHOUT ANY BIASED, OUTSIDE INFLUENCES WHATSOEVER!

I agree, in principle, that there’s nothing wrong with having a Black
become President.  Many Blacks are intelligent, fluent people.  A good
President of the USA needs to be an intelligent, fluent person.  But
the main ‘justification’ for electing a Black to be President must
have a more important basis than just the color of his (or her) skin.
Skin color, ipso facto, isn’t a qualification for holding any public
office.  And if skin color was the standard for judging one’s
qualification to hold public office, such a standard would be
unconstitutional—even in our present and most outdated document.

To have REAL change, we must depart from the ways of the past!  Barack
Obama is bragging about how he can appeal to… “both sides of the
aisle”.  But by saying those simple words, Obama is touting that he is
ANTI DEMOCRACY.  Political parties, and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL rules of
Congress, are for the express purpose of allowing “certain people” to
have more power than the Constitution grants.  All of the “seniority
and majority party” allocations of power are now, and always have
been, anti democracy!

Barack Obama is deluded if he believes that he can bring about real
change—simply by continuing to embrace the failed processes of the
past.  His chances of success vary from slim to none.  The REAL
impediment to having worthwhile changes enacted by Congress is this:
Big Business is “in bed with” our supposed representatives.  That
shameful interaction goes much further than the more or less public
influences of lobbyists.  The ‘ax’ that businesses hold over
Congress’s heads—and in many cases, over the heads of those in the
Executive Branch—is that it costs hundreds, if not thousand of times
more money to get elected to public office than should be required!
So, it isn’ttoodifficult to see why the corrupt media will do
everything in its power to be sure that the candidate or candidates
who spend the most money on advertising will get elected to their
respective public offices.

The founding fathers had to include in our government an anti
democracy US Senate in order to get the disparate, thirteen states to
ratify the original Constitution.  Now, in the best interests of
democracy, I have ELIMINATED the entire US Senate!  There’s no unfair
discrimination against any state.  Oh, some the ’small’ states might
not like losing their having the same number of senators as large
states.  When the small states did have such equality, they had more
influence than a well-principled democracy would allow.  State
governments which have modeled their constitutions on the US
Constitution will have to eliminate their senates,too.  Of course,
when my New Constitution is ratified, the ‘prestige’ of saying that
one is a senator, anywhere, will be no more.  But rejoice, People!
The efficiency of our governments will nearly DOUBLE—and while cutting
the costs by Billions, if not trillions of dollars!

Firing the collective anti democracy senators will be a simple and
prudent thing to do.  But correcting that pseudo branch of government
known as—the media—will be much more involved.  Due to dire necessity,
the First Amendment’s guarantee of… ‘freedom of the press’ has been
changed in my New Constitution.  The new wording is: “…freedom of a
PRO DEMOCRACY press.”  That simple change will send to the
unemployment lines every single person in the media who comments on;
give assessments of; polls regarding; or who openly or tacitly
endorses any candidate for public office; or who touts even the
slightest nuance of any pending public policy as being good or bad.
In short, no professionals in the media shall be entitled to influence
the outcome of any governmental process above the one-person-one-vote
influence guaranteed by the New Constitution!

On a typical day, there is more “news” in the colored scrolls of type
coming across the bottom of your TV than you’ve ever see or hear on
the purported news programs that are appearing LIVE, just above.  Even
with those scrolls, biased editors weed out 95% or more of what the
general public is entitled to know.  They favor information about
celebrities or media figures over “mundane” news that involves John Q.
Public.  The media’s mantra—that shall be changed—is: “We in the
media, and only we in the media, determine what Americans are entitled
to know.”

Be it known: The media, as well anyone who holds, or has held, a government office or job shall be culpable, retroactively, if any of its members interfere with—in any manner whatsoever—the ratification processes for the New Constitution.  The least punishment for such a felony is three years in prison.  It shall be treason, to flagrantly organize a resistance to having a one-day, democratic vote on the New Constitution.  The punishment for such treason includes banishment from the USA; life in prison; or death. <<<<<

So, as the media continues on its merry course to RAPE democracy in
America, each person so employed, including the likes of: Tim Russert,
Jack Kafferty, Rush Limbaugh, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, David Gurgen,
Jeffrey Toobin, Gloria Borger, Jamal Simmons, Roland Martin, Bill
O'Reilly, Donna Brazile ad infinitum should be most careful about
putting themselves in jeopardy by “handicapping” the continuing race
for President.

And those don’t-make-too-many-waves commentators like Lu Dobbs should
consider whether “pulling his punches” to protect his job shows high
enough motives.  Bright lights like Campbell Brown should consider
whether her stock ownership in ‘recreational battery companies’ should
justify her ‘smiling’ while CNN continues to rape democracy.  Time-
Warner itself could be in danger of being shut down, when it is shown
that its business activities aren’t in the best interest of the
country, and of the world.

Folks, the primary reason for having… ‘punishments’ for wrongs is to
get people to STOP doing wrong things!  In past eras, going to war was
the process by which new governments replaced old ones.  My New
Constitution has used as its standard: Doing what is best for the vast
majority of Americans.  “What is best” will necessitate stopping group-
against-group, party-against-party, and class-against-class fights.
By replacing such divisiveness with FAIR PLAY, the mechanisms of our
American way of life will get the fresh oiling that they sorely need!

Ron Paul has impressed me as someone who sticks to his principles.  A
man like that quickly cuts any ‘strings’ that try to pull him one way
or another.  One of my many complaints about Barack Obama, is that he
has enough soundly-attached strings on him to circle the globe a
zillion times.  Obama could never be objective regarding the
ratification processes for my New Constitution.  Corrupt business
influences desire to continue business as usual.

The advantage of having a one-day, POPULAR VOTE, only, ratification
process is that our corrupt Congress will get to have just one vote
per member—like every other duly registered voter in America!  The
seated members of the HOUSE will get a two year grace period to remain
in office.  After that, my ten year, total term limit will cut in.  No
one needs to fear that this country will be “leaderless” during the
transition to a New Form of government.  The improved efficiency
brought about because the House will no longer have to came to
agreement with the corrupt Senate, should make those last two years
productive ones for our most tenured representatives.

Other than to modify how our President is elected, nothing about the
duties and functions of the Executive Branch has been changed.  And
very importantly, nothing about the organization nor function of our
armed services has changed.  Additionally, the Second Amendment Right
to keep and bear arms has been expanded for law abiding citizens!  At
every turn, individual rights are increased.  Heretofore, those have
been known as our civil liberties.  Never again will your or my civil
liberties be placed at the whim of those making or enforcing our
laws.  So, as I explain more things about the New Constitution, please
know that you and yours are going to be EMPOWERED to get fair
treatment from your government!

Because RON PAUL is the best choice to be our President, I’m
recommending that Americans everywhere write in RON PAUL this
November.  Ron himself likes Rep. Dennis Kucinich for his running
mate.  So, if both of those men are in agreement to work together,
patriotic Americans—like you and me—can speed ...

read more »

.