J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the same communiqué differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a "you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point? Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. — > On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable > deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of > the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no > intention of entering the race. > > On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
