Folks: My essays from two years ago are still very apt for
understanding what's wrong with our 'broke' government. Last night I
heard Bill O'Reilly shrug-off a viewer's criticism of why O'Reilly
didn't ask Obama about his... (nonexistent) USA birth certificate.
Bill has an IQ of, at best, 85 to 90. Yet, he supposes his notions
about what's right and just should hold sway. O'Reilly, a blood
liberal, had as his only "tough" question this: "Why do so many people
HATE you, Mr. President?" The actual reason, which O'Reilly should
have freely preached is: Obama is a socialist/communist who wants to
destroy the free-enterprise system that made the USA great; he doesn't
respect the Will of the People granted by the Constitution placing
them in charge of their government; he thinks more government control
of everything will make things better; he willingly indebts
generations of Americans to play for his programs; and he doesn't
consider that the Republicans who lost the 2008 election have any
right to help determine the course of government. In short, Barack
Obama is hated because he sees himself as the "elected" dictator of
the USA. He is THE most hurtful and divisive figure in American
history—clearly guilty of TREASON, second to none!
The following is that summary essay explaining our flawed presidential
oath of office, and other easily recognized failings of our
government.
11/28/08
THE CONSTITUTION—UNPRESERVED, UNPROTECTED & UNDEFENDED.
When the Constitution was being written, our Founding Fathers had
noble goals. They wanted to be certain that America wouldn’t be
controlled by an oppressive government—like those known to many of
their ancestors. And they wished to let the People, themselves, have
a fair say-so in who gets to govern, and what laws get past. In short
the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to have self-rule, rather than
rule by others.
Patriotism was much in evidence at the time our Constitution was
written. The understandable assumption was: “Those who get elected to
govern will be idealists who will serve their electorates.” Most of
the Constitution’s noble concepts were intended to be perpetuated,
because changes could only be made by amendments which must be
ratified by 3/4s of the legislatures of the several states. The
Constitution, also, contains the requirement that: “Senators and
Representatives, and the members of the several State Legislatures,
and all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and
of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to
support the Constitution…”
Additionally, the President is required to take the following Oath of
Office: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office
of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.” We’ve all heard various Chief Justices of the Supreme Court
administering that exact oath to presidents in the past. But
tragically… ALL of such Oaths have gone UNHEEDED throughout our
country’s history! And the consequences of that disregard are now
threatening the survival of the USA!
In January 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. will repeat the
empty words of the Presidential Oath of Office to Barack Obama… Such
will be ‘empty’, again, UNLESS Roberts and other patriotic Americans
wake up and recognize the much-too-traditional slights of the American
People, which has been allowed to continue regarding how we are
governed. What are those slights?
(1.) From its inception, the Constitution has included a US Senate.
Arguably, the Senate is the most powerful group of people in this
country. *** However, power which is not derived from the equitable
control of the people, runs counter to the SPIRIT of the Constitution!
*** From day one, there was a conflict of purpose in the Constitution
that not a SINGLE person who has taken an oath-of-office has been
willing to stand up and vow to get corrected! The ‘tradition’ of
allowing the Senate to continue, does NOT excuse the RESPONSIBILITY of
those taking Oaths of Office to work to get the Constitution amended,
or changed, to eliminate the UNDEMOCRATIC Senate!
(2.) Our Constitution makes no mention of the ‘acceptability’ of
allowing political parties to be CLEARINGHOUSES in determining who our
elected officials can be. Political parities—with their unique sets
of biases and objectives—have undercut the genuine representation, and
the diversity that is so needed in our government officials. Though
political parties have their own ‘rules’, they are the rules of quasi
governmental bodies which run counter to the USA itself, and are thus
unconstitutional.
(3.) Our Constitution details the procedures associated with the
Electoral College System for APPROXIMATING the democratic votes of the
People. In pioneer times, the Electoral College was the only workable
way to get the votes relayed to Washington. Before there was such
thing as even a telegraph, it was electors on horseback, or nothing.
But the SPIRIT of the Constitution demands that when technology—such
as we have, now—enables the accurate counting of the votes of the
People in a single day, that both the People AND democracy are best
served by letting the popular votes decide elections! Any President
who takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”,
must preserve, protect, and defend the OBJECTIVES of the Constitution,
NOT just the horse and buggy era… ’traditions’ which are no longer
serving the best interests of the People!
(4.) Our Constitution allows the House and Senate to make their own…
rules. But the SPIRIT of the Constitution DEMANDS that its most
fundamental objectives NOT be negated by whatever rules have been
made! To wit: (A.) Allowing seniority to determine who has power on
committees or in legislative processes. (B.) Allowing the majority
party to have powerful chairmanships of committees and sub-
committees. (C.) Allowing straw votes, or test votes, to identify
who will need to be pressured to… pass or to defeat a bill. (D.)
Allowing role call votes which let under-the-table deals be made while
the votes are being cast. (F.) Allowing filibustering to give
individuals more power than their one vote. (G.) Allowing caucuses
of any kind for gaining unfair influence over the outcome of votes.
(H.) Allowing disparate items to be ‘attached’ to bills, so that the
passage of the desired portions must also entail the passage of the
undesired portions. Etc., etc…
Heretofore, any person taking an oath to support the Constitution has
in fact been taking an oath the support the failed TRADITIONS which
violate the SPIRIT of the Constitution, itself!
(5.) The formal and informal “Washington Scene” allows members of
Congress to be influenced by lobbyists and by ‘persuasive’ fellow
members of Congress. Congressmen should only be communicating with
their own electorates regarding how to vote. And any congressman who
votes counter to the will of their electorate does so in violation of
democracy!
(6.) Because of the ubiquitous… media, congressman are playing to the
national scene, rather than to their individual electorates. The
mindset of congressional factions is that they must get media
approval. Such deference gives the media MORE influence on the
outcome of elections and votes than the voters themselves! ***
Political Parties, and the media, are two corrupt, conceptually-
verboten, influences which have come between the People and their
government. The SPIRIT of the Constitution requires that the People
have equitable control of government. The latter necessitates that
sweeping changes be made in order to be certain that the media, never
again, shall have more influence than the individual votes of their
numbers on election days! ***
Applicants for American Citizenship are required to take a course on
the basic workings of our American form of government. When the Oath
of Citizenship is given, this country must be reasonably sure that the
applicants know what will be expected of them. In criminal cases,
judges accepting pleads of guilt must be certain that the defendant
realizes what rights he or she has, or might be waiving. Similarly,
when Chief Justice Roberts gives the Oath of Office to Barack Obama,
Roberts must be sure that Obama is not only sincere, but that he knows
what… “preserve, protect, and defend” means.
Barack Obama, a past professor of Constitutional Law, should certainly
know that much of our somehow-evolved American form of Government is
in violation of the SPIRIT of the Constitution! Yet, throughout his
long campaign, Obama hasn’t once stood on the side of democracy.
Instead, he sided with: “the delegate counts”; and with “the decision
of the DNC Rules Committee”; and with “the clearly biased media who
were backing HIM—because he had the most Ad money to spend.” Numbers
of Celebrities on shows like ‘Larry King Live’ also were supporting
Obama, lest they loose the patronage of “a majority” of Americans—
projected to be such by anti democracy, political polls that amounted
to holding the election before election day—and in violation of the
SPIRIT of the Constitution.
This week, ‘Judge Judy’ was on King’s show. When he asked his
obligatory question: “What do you think of Obama’s election?“, she
became all smiles and answered in a positive way, while her body
language (and phony smile) showed she was lying. Judge Judy won’t do
anything that might reduce the number viewers of her show. But I’m
appreciative of her TV persona… because my New Constitution now has
strong provisions written in for the expressed purpose of being
certain that no rude and inconsiderate “Judge Judy” type judges get to
remain on the bench! Courtrooms don’t ‘belong’ to the judge, nor to
the state, they belong to law abiding citizens! So, nix the robes and
the lace, woman, those will be verboten under my New Constitution!
Barack Obama doesn’t embrace fairness and principles of democracy.
Therefore… the man is UNQUALIFIED to take the Oath of Office! His
‘toothy smiles’ on the covers of our biased media magazines, can’t
negate his being morally bankrupt. In a very important way, the
integrity of Chief Justice Roberts will be on the line next January.
But proper action by Roberts, now, could change the course of this
country, for the better. We can all survive without Obama as
President. In fact… that may be the only way that this country can
survive.
The minutiae of Obama’s failures to support the most basic SPIRIT of
the Constitution, should be evident to a smart man like Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, Jr. In the coming days or weeks, unless Barack Obama
proclaims that he will to push for sweeping campaign and election
reform, then he’s giving his tacit approval to allowing the unfairness
in our elections to continue—and to the detriment of our ability to
survive and prosper as a nation. No man who doesn’t favor FAIRNESS in
our elections, and in our government, shall ever be qualified to
become President of the United States!
There was LOVE in my heart for the American People while I wrote the
New Constitution. That means: People of all races, colors and
creeds! When right things start being done, MOST Americans will
benefit! And a new harmony will prevail throughout this Great Land!
My New Constitution—which is poised and polished—can FIX our broken
government! To start to learn how that will be accomplished, skim the
latter months of my post, below, for more premises of, and excerpts
from, my ‘New Constitution of the United States of America’!
Respectfully Submitted,
— NoEinstein —
Campaigning is a Science, too.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a83e59ee6ca4d1f5/b29f39ee45684d85?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b29f39ee45684d85
>
On Feb 6, 2:37 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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.
