J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? — J. A. A. — > On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > *John, INLINE:* > > On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan: > > > (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for > > President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the > > present, let alone project the way future events could have played > > out. > > *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump > never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe? > The media? Or, Donald Trump?* > > > > > > > > > Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below: > > > "Preface: > > The Will of the People is the foundation of government. The > > People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that > > government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the > > coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that > > cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such shall > > be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of > > opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal > > and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet > > focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and > > tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from > > politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be > > synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor > > are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall > > be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens > > thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and > > our posterity." > > *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New > Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not > answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not > YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New Constitution the > 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian > > who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to > > direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. This > > is the sentence which you neglected to copy: > > > " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly > > members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a > > violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in > > any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes allowing > > the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power' > > than the members have. > > *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> (4.) The Secret > Service wasn't part of government during the earlier > > years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for > > President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years > > old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath > > to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly > > overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all > > socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are > > responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and > > comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the > > Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating > > that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and > > causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest > > order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste! > > *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a > Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this > Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither > shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained > to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident > within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution > offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or how > such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not > created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be evidence > enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility > of the POTUS. * > > > > > > > > > � John A. Armistead � Patriot > > > On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> wrote: > >> John, > > >> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt > >> avoid answering, as usual): > > >> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race." > > >> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > > >> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As such, > >> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most people > >> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a local > >> PTA "Madam President." > > >> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret > >> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The mission > >> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's > >> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity > >> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state > >> and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events." > > >> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that the > >>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our > >>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls to > >>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington. > >>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to > >>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles in� > >>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a enough > >>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many states > >>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be > >>> President. > >>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The rock > >>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise > >>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. If, > >>> as I�ve proposed, presidential candidates spend no more than five > >>> million dollars on their campaigns, *** there can be, literally, > >>> billions of dollars that can remain in the pockets of the voters, > >>> rather than going to our close-to-universally-corrupt media. A huge > >>> plus will be the suspension of the unconstitutional, spaced-out > >>> primaries that give the most power to the voters of Iowa and etc. > >>> When the primaries are suspended, there will be no more > >>> unconstitutional party conventions such as gave us our Manchurian > >>> Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya. Once and for all there will > >>> be an end to the unconstitutional political parties which have �split > >>> the USA down the aisle� for far too long. > >>> Voters should have no trouble choosing good choices for President > >>> based simply on televised debates and fairly-formatted candidate > >>> interviews. The entire election process should span no more than six > >>> months, and the candidates can stay rested, rather than being frazzled > >>> by the stupidity of jetting back and forth on the pretext of being > >>> better able to� �serve� the people of the particular state they > >>> happen > >>> to be in better than he or she can serve the citizens of a dozen other > >>> states where the same dull speech was recited before. > >>> With �give-�em-hell� Donald Trump out of the race, I�m not sure > >>> there > >>> is a single presidential hopeful wise enough and practical enough to > >>> Kick the Ass of the Entire Primary System! It only takes ONE brave > >>> candidate to do that. Simply say: �The primaries give inequitable > >>> power to the voters in the early primaries. That makes the spaced-out > >>> primaries unconstitutional, as it does the party conventions that > >>> follow. Nothing in the Constitution allows quasi-governmental bodies, > >>> like our political parties, to have ANY say-so whatsoever in how > >>> governmental processes are run. In a Republic, like the USA is so > >>> clearly mandated to be, there can be no LEADERS in Congress! Every > >>> representative, regardless of how recently he or she was elected, > >>> shall have identical voting power. To call Newt Gingrich �Mr. > >>> Speaker� is to create ROYALTY in Congress that was so detested by the > >>> founding fathers. George Washington rejected the idea that he should > >>> be king! And George Washington would reject the notion that Czars > >>> under the control of the President can bypass the powers granted to > >>> Congress alone. > >>> Thus far, the �Ritual� of the Secret Service protecting the (gag) > >>> President is preventing them from asking this simple question: Is the > >>> �long form� birth certificate of Obama�which was posted on the > >>> Internet in digital form�a LAYERED *. pdf file? If there are LAYERS, > >>> then, that document is a definite forgery. I repeat: Is the �long > >>> form� birth certificate of Obama�which was posted on the Internet in > >>> digital form�a LAYERED *. pdf file? If the answer is confirmed to be > >>> yes, as I and thousands of other computer-savvy American�s know is the > >>> case, then Barack Hussein Obama won�t be running for President in > >>> 2012. He may be wishing that he had run from this country on any of > >>> those� family �vacations� that he took, checking-out the climate for > >>> fugitives from justice from the USA. > >>> Kicking the ass of the political parties by first one, then, most of > >>> the candidates; and/or having the Secret Service get off of its ass > >>> and serve the citizens of the USA, will set this country right, > >>> again. Nothing in the Constitution or in any Law requires the S. S. > >>> to look the other way to a non bona fide �president� in the > > ... > > 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.
