Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On Jun 11, 8:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

GORE UPSTAGES OBAMA.

Al Gore has finally played-his-hand by endorsing Barack Obama. Gore’s
well composed speech has to rate as one of his more impassioned ones.
But was the late date of its delivery chosen to maximize the impact
for Obama? Or was the late date chosen to highlight the oft-hinted
personal spite of Gore for the Clintons?

Gore’s endorsement speech kept mentioning how “important” elections
are. But what he should have said was: …how important FAIR elections
are. Eight years ago, Al Gore was the man who brought many democracy-
loving people, like me, to near tears. In the 2000 presidential race,
no tears had been shed by Republicans over the handling of the Florida
vote counts. Many Republicans actually rejoiced that the majority of
the US Supreme Court valued the scheduling of already slated events
above democracy itself. That’s like rejoicing when your team wins the
Super Bowl, because of bad officiating. Democracy got raped in 2000,
and democracy continues to be raped, now. Who should be rejoicing?

Numbers of times, Obama was shown on camera as he listened to Gore’s
endorsement speech. Obama looked like a smiling, limp rag which has
been squeezed-out too many times. The scene was Detroit—where auto
makers are closing plants. And the scene was… Michigan, where Obama
had been an active, or at least a tacit participant, in the rape of
democracy which so favored his candidacy. To become President, Obama
must win Michigan. That’s why the Gore endorsement campaign rally was
held in Detroit. From Obama’s perspective, surely, Michigan voters
will support for him—if he honors them by visiting. But to get their
support, Michigan voters must have short memories.

The Clinton years were good years for this country. Those facing hard
times can remember that fact. Many of the eighteen million votes for
Clinton were cast because of her experience; confidence for the job;
and because she symbolized the hope and promise of having better
times, again. Only by his rhetoric for “change” has Obama been able
to rally dissatisfied voters.

In less than a week after the final primaries, Hillary Clinton changed-
her-spots to endorse Obama, too. Though her supporters in Washington
cheered, that was another dark day for democracy. Perhaps out of
deference to me, Clinton promised that she “will be on the frontlines
of democracy!” Yet, for whatever reason, she is siding with Obama—who
values any democracy, or the rape thereof, which benefits him.

In his speech, Al Gore referred, erroneously, to “our great
democracy”. The USA is the biggest ‘pusher’ of democracy in the
world. But since the inception of our nation, this country has only
had a crude approximation of a democracy. Electors are apportioned
based on the erroneous assumption that the voter turn-out will match
the states’ relative populations. And that causes the votes in
different states to have different weight. A working democracy—such
as my New Constitution will instate—requires that votes be equally
weighted, well informed, and accurately counted. Those three things
should be understandable by all Americans. Yet, many cling to a hope—
in Barack Obama, no less—that our failed system of government can
magically make things right, if only we’ll elect Obama.

Hillary Clinton took two painful slaps to the face, yesterday. The
first was Obama’s announcement that the former Clinton campaign manager
—whom she herself had fired—would become the ‘press secretary’ for the
vice presidential nominee. So, Clinton is OUT as Vice President.
Now, some are wondering if Al Gore might be Obama’s choice. Gore is
certainly qualified to be President. But is his being pro environment
a strong enough justification for having anyone support Obama, whom
Gore now endorses?

Al Gore kept saying that elections are important. What he was really
stressing was that Michigan voters are important. Michigan is like a
microcosm of blue collar workers. Unless Obama can manage to dupe
them into believing that he is now… clean and good, then it’s unlikely
that blue collar workers, anywhere, will support him. Without blue
collar workers, Obama can’t win.

Realistically, Clinton isn’t the de facto spokesperson for those
eighteen million people who voted for her. Though Clinton, magically,
changed-her-spots right after the primaries, it’s unlikely that those
voters to whom she appealed will be swayed from their key issues. And
didn’t most of those people also vote AGAINST Barack Obama?

‘Dallas’s’ Bobby Ewing once emerged from the shower acting like the
previous year was just a dream. Hillary Clinton, too, should wake up
and realize that neither Obama nor McCain appeal to blue collar
workers. Clinton’s endorsement of Obama got upstaged by Gore, because
of his timing, as well as his passion. In a very real way, Gore also
upstaged Obama. Gore’s passionate ‘introduction’ of Obama wasn’t
matched by a like passion in Obama’s speech. Since Barack couldn’t
match Gore’s passion, he didn’t try. While Obama’s campaign keeps
stampeding right along, he, Clinton, nor Gore can be certain that
Obama can sway those surely bewildered, eighteen million voters who
are now without a champion whom they can trust.

The surefire way to change Washington for the better is to embrace
democracy and ratify my labor-of-love New Constitution. Obama and
McCain would both represent a continuation of the same old group-
against-group, party-against-party, and class-against-class fights
that have failed us in the past. But mostly they would be leaving in
place “a system” that allows big business to control the processes of
government, and the laws, rules and regulations that get passed or
enacted. Our security as a nation demands that we correct the “hate
the USA” feelings, and the hate capitalism feelings evident in much of
the world. World War III can happen at any “3:00 a.m.” But if this
country will heed my wakeup call to put FAIR PLAY back into our
dealings—both here and abroad—then the threat of terrorism and wars
can be greatly lessened.

If Al Gore wants to improve planet Earth, he should insist that people
like me—who have disproved Einstein’s theories of relativity—be freed
up to solve the Earth’s problems. Manpower isn’t being well used
sending kids to universities which don’t teach truths. And the hopes
and dreams of millions of us aren’t being well served by sending
people to Washington to try to change things in a flawed system which,
by its design, discourages making the correct types of changes.

Changing Washington will be a SNAP compared to changing or reining-in
the media. But if the American people will just realize that it is
they—not those whom they too optimistically send to do their bidding—
who hold the key to the salvation of the USA, then there is cause for
hope! As with that famous poster of Uncle Sam pointing his finger: “I
want Americans to realize that our getting a New Constitution is the
best solution for the Citizens of the USA!”

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


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,toooften, 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 betoogreat; and the problem of
information dissemination would betoogreat.  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

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.