your countries. I'm fighting to save the USA, because this is the
only country I have! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Feb 25, 12:15 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hold three passports and love every one of my countries....
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Ashley <
>
> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > It appears to me you are about self-glorification, not patriotism.
>
> > On 2/25/2011 7:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Socialist-Communist: There is three or four times more MEAT in
> > the 40% of my New Constitution, regularly printed in the thread, than
> > in the entire original Constitution! In the RUDEST way, you've
> > attacked me for not showing you the 60%, when you haven't cared enough
> > to even look back for the meaty 40%! Make your own post, traitor.
> > I'm about saving the USA. I have a "pointed wooden stake" for the
> > heart of anyone who stands in my way! — J. A. A. — Patriot
>
> > On Feb 23, 11:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > John,
>
> > I was under the impression when I joined this political "discussion"
> > group that folks subscribed to the group to discuss political issues.
>
> > Your failure to post YOUR New Constitution when at least four people
> > (including myself) have expressed a sincere interest in reading it shows
> > you are not interested in having it enacted. Either that or you are
> > afraid of the feedback you will receive.
>
> > I seem to recall your concern with publishing it was it isn't
> > copyrighted. Would a true "patriot" (as you continually label yourself)
> > be more concerned with the direction in which his country is headed or
> > HIS copyright protection? As it stands now, YOUR New Constitution will
> > likely die when you do because no one else will ever have a chance to
> > read it.
>
> > Your claim that I am "likely socialist-communist" shows you have never
> > read anything I have posted to this group. If you had you would know
> > that I come real close to believing that the government that governs
> > best is no government at all. A completely voluntary society could not
> > possibly be any worse than the socialist police state we now live in.
>
> > Your comment, "You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!"
> > only confirms my suspicion that you are a wanna-be dictator. If you were
> > a moderator for this group, I would likely have been banned long ago
> > because I dared to comment on YOUR posts.
>
> > On 2/23/2011 6:33 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> > MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> > communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA! �
> > John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is ever
> > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
>
> > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
>
> > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > have
> > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > President
> > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of
> > a
> > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To wit:
> > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > throats.
> > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My New
> > Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those parts of it
> > not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies, but to
> > be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, maliciously,
> > make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to side-track
> > my efforts.
> > I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for fourteen
> > years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises highlighted
> > in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts. What
> > is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the original
> > constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with our
> > Constitution.
> > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could have
> > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > out of office any public official or employee, including the President
> > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of a
> > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To wit:
> > "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
> > other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and the
> > right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > branches or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so
> > petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> > comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities who
> > have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of
> > the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications. Failure
> > to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall,
> > on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment,
> > especially those in management or public office�including judges and
> > justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent
> > Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No
> > judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above required
> > duties, that they in any way might be compromising their objectivity
> > or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed.
> > Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable
> > truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or
> > satire�is prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news
> > medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, or
> > ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named as
> > being authored by management; editorial comments by others that are in
> > any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments
> > occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would
> > come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss of
> > license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside
> > of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
> > provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> > the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all
> > of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
> > medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall
> > be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium. Each medium shall
> > respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> > medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> > not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
> > government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment�
> > being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the
> > truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive
> > commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any
> > candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> > campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
> > public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall
> > display active public records without the free consent of the apt
> > parties."
> > Keith, the above should highlight the extreme attention to detail I've
> > put into my document. No person, by a casual comment, shall have the
> > "right" to denigrate my efforts. The following proviso is at the
> > closing of my New Constitution:
> > "Notes: (1.) *Italicized text represents portions of the New
> > Constitution which shall be omitted unless separately and specifically
> > approved by 60% of the voters. Voting to approve the New Constitution
> > shall not be a vote on italicized portions. (2.) Any person, group or
> > business which polls the People on their support or non support of
> > this New Constitution or its parts prior to the national
>
> > ..
>
> > read more »
>
> > --
> > Don't rely on an overpriced attorney. Learn how you can control judges and
> > lawyers <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004> yourself!
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.*
--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment