There is no Court Order that enabled a prohibited person to run for office. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The challenger was prohibited from being a candidate and this is what happened in the year 2000 to your colleague. Tell me you read this provision before or after your started campaigning. It is contempt of Court to say so. You want us to believe you intend to uphold the Constitution. You are the custodian of your own Vice Presidential Library as funded by the U.S. Treasury. You are also funded by the Treasury in amounts above $100,000.00. You earn more than 4 police officers in Pennsylvania and Delaware. The Democrat's candidate was not entitled to be any candidate. The Democrats are disqualified. See U.S. Code § 7323.Political activity authorized; prohibitions. Anyone receiving payment from the treasury is an employee of the U.S. Government and cannot (3)run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. U.S. Code § 7323.Political activity authorized; prohibitions. Click here.

 

The Democrats are disqualified.  See U.S. Code § 7323.Political activity authorized; prohibitions.     Anyone receiving payment from the treasury is an employee of the U.S. Government and cannot  (3)run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office.   U.S. Code § 7323.Political activity authorized; prohibitions.  Click here. 


U.S. Code § 7323.Political activity authorized; prohibitions

(a)Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—
(1)
use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;
(2)knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless such person is—
(A)
a member of the same Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103(4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4))); [1]
(B)
not a subordinate employee; and
(C)
the solicitation is for a contribution to the multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4))) 1 of such Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103(4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of the enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4))); 1 or
(3)
run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office; or
(4)knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who—
(A)
has an application for any compensation, grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the employing office of such employee; or
(B)
is the subject of or a participant in an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the employing office of such employee.
(b)
(1)
An employee of the Federal Election Commission (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may not request or receive from, or give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uniformed service a political contribution.
(2)
(A)
No employee described under subparagraph (B) (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(B)The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall apply to—
(i)an employee of—
(I)
the Federal Election Commission or the Election Assistance Commission;
(II)
the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(III)
the Secret Service;
(IV)
the Central Intelligence Agency;
(V)
the National Security Council;
(VI)
the National Security Agency;
(VII)
the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(VIII)
the Merit Systems Protection Board;
(IX)
the Office of Special Counsel;
(X)
the Office of Criminal Investigation of the Internal Revenue Service;
(XI)
the Office of Investigative Programs of the United States Customs Service;
(XII)
the Office of Law Enforcement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms;
(XIII)
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; or
(XIV)
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; or
(ii)
a person employed in a position described under section 3132(a)(4), 5372, 5372a, or 5372b of title 5, United States Code.
(3)
No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(4)
For purposes of this subsection, the term “active part in political management or in a political campaign” means those acts of political management or political campaigning which were prohibited for employees of the competitive service before July 19, 1940, by determinations of the Civil Service Commission under the rules prescribed by the President.
(c)
An employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.
(Added Pub. L. 103–94, § 2(a), Oct. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 1002; amended Pub. L. 103–359, title V, § 501(k), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3430; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, § 1122(a)(1), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2687; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(3) [title VI, § 645(a)(2)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–170; Pub. L. 107–252, title VIII, § 811(a), Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1727; Pub. L. 108–458, title I, § 1079(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3695; Pub. L. 109–177, title V, § 506(b)(2), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 249; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title IX, § 931(a)(1), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4575.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH & FLEET STREET FINANCIAL DISPATCH LONDON — SEPTEMBER 2025 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND THE MECHANICS OF UNIVERSAL DEMAND An Analytical Examination of the Post-War Industrial Order, the Fallacy of Unfettered Laissez-Faire, Mechanisation, and the State-Guaranteed System of Participatory Remuneration BY OUR SPECIAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT IN FLEET STREET, Warren A. Lyon with Cheuy Leon Stephen Lam Tom. LONDON — In the tenth year following the cessation of European hostilities in 1955, as the Western world navigates the transition from wartime economic controls to the mid-century industrial consensus, thoughtful observers in Fleet Street, Westminster, and the City must confront a fundamental problem of political economy. The modern capitalist apparatus—stretching across the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, North America, and Western Europe—operates upon a single, immutable law: the imperative equilibrium between Supply and Demand. Yet, despite the vast expansion of mechanized production, factory automation, and electronic computation, our financial architectures continue to suffer from a crippling structural defect: the systemic failure to guarantee requisite consumer purchasing power (ability to pay/ATP) across the whole of the populace. I. THE LESSONS OF THE POST-WAR CONSCIOUSNESS: SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND THE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT To comprehend the crisis of modern industrial organization, one must discard the antiquated Victorian dogma that human existence is defined solely by manual toil. Under the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, labour was treated as an elastic commodity, hired when factories required muscle and cast aside into poverty when machines replaced handiwork. In an age dominated by automatic machinery, conveyor systems, and early electronic computing, such a doctrine is not merely obsolete; it is actively destructive to the civic health of the realm. Consider the macro-economic structure as an electrical power grid carrying a constant current of thirty amperes. Under a rational and balanced order, this current is bifurcated equally along two parallel conductors: fifteen amperes are directed to energise the lamp of Industrial Supply (the manufacturing apparatus, capital investment, and technological innovation), while the remaining fifteen amperes flow uninterrupted to power the lamp of Demand—the Ability to Pay vested within the consumer public. In an unregulated laissez-faire system, however, an artificial blockage is introduced along the conductor powering Consumer Demand. It acts as a deliberate obstruction—resembling a corkscrew jammed into the brass fittings of a ship's engine room. The electrical energy, unable to reach the lamp of Demand, encounters extreme resistance; heat builds rapidly within the circuit, insulation scorches, and the entire socio-economic edifice is threatened with catastrophic conflagration. Energy in an economic system, like energy in physics, is never destroyed; if it is denied its proper outlet in legitimate consumer spending, it manifests as market collapse, civil unrest, shoplifting, and social decay. Click here.

Post a Comment