ME, you are talking to probably THE most patriotic American. Any
negativity at all pegs you as one who is subversive to having the USA
be saved. And that sides you with leftist, socialist-communists. "Go
straight to Hell; go only to Hell." You are not wanted in the USA! —
J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 3, 9:31 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein,
>
> You call it a patriotic effort. The law, as it stands, calls it sedition.
> You call criticism "picking at the details", I ask what does "tone" have to
> do with honesty and editing ??
>
> If indeed your effort was either honest or sane you would know that these
> (oh, poor you!!!) deriding "tones", constant criticism, and nitpicking are
> all NECESSARY parts of producing any Public Document.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:14 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Folks: My first impressions KILLED any chance Jonathan Ashley might
> > ever have had to have me reply to him. Today, I read a brief post of
> > his in which he expressed his dislike of big government and his desire
> > to have power returned to the people and to the States. Apparently,
> > Ashley was ticked-off that anyone, like me, could single-handedly fix
> > all of the problems. So, that guy is attacking my patriotic efforts
> > by picking at 'the details' of my constitution. *** Note: None of the
> > ten thousand details is up for discussion unless a person has a
> > considerate tone which Ashley completely lacks. Most of his pet
> > questions have already been answered, if he, and others, would simply
> > read back into the thread. I don't have time to repeat the same
> > things just so a jerk like Jonathan Ashley can feel important. I
> > suspect he is more motivated to retard my efforts than he is to
> > actually fixing any government problems, anywhere. So, whatever I
> > call Ashley, he is, and will remain, undeserving of being replied to.
> > — J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Once again, John has resorted to name calling instead of answering the
> > > 10 specific questions I asked regarding HIS New Constitution.
>
> > > "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
> > > not sure about the former."
> > > - Albert Einstein
>
> > > On 3/2/2011 7:19 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Folks: Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.
> > > > � J. A. A. �
> > > > On Mar 2, 1:29 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> John,
>
> > > >> You wrote:
>
> > > >> *> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has
> > to
> > > >> be!*
>
> > > >> It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of a
> > dictator.
> > > >> As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," let us look
> > > >> at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith.
>
> > > >> *> 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.*
>
> > > >> 1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New Constitution
> > > >> already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, why are
> > > >> these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution?
>
> > > >> 2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is "peaceful"? A
> > > >> Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic?
>
> > > >> 3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, processes,
> > > >> slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"?
>
> > > >> 4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic from
> > > >> influencing your secular government?
>
> > > >> 4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans,
> > > >> and disbursements" need be secular?
> > > >> *
> > > >> > No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of
> > > >> speech; *
>
> > > >> You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared
> > > >> "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements
> > shall
> > > >> be secular."
>
> > > >> *> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium;*
>
> > > >> 1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is being "fair
> > > >> and pro-democracy"?
>
> > > >> 2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other medium" to
> > > >> be"pro-democracy"?Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a
> > sheep
> > > >> deciding on what to have for dinner.
>
> > > >> *> 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.*
>
> > > >> It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st Amendment of our
> > > >> current Constitution in tact.
>
> > > >> *> 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.*
>
> > > >> 1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, relevant,
> > > >> timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"?
>
> > > >> 2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" authority?
>
> > > >> 3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have
> > thoroughly
> > > >> read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances
> > or
> > > >> requests for directions or clarifications"?
>
> > > >> I am having too much fun to continue.
>
> > > >> Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack
> > constructs
> > > >> such as...*
>
> > > >> Rule of construction*
>
> > > >> If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an official
> > has
> > > >> a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise of a
> > power,
> > > >> the presumption shall be that the official does not have the
> > power,
> > > >> or conversely, that the person has the immunity.
>
> > > >> *Access to grand jury, appointment of prosecutors*
>
> > > >> No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to a randomly
> > > >> selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return an
> > indictment
> > > >> or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to prosecute
> > > >> the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has jurisdiction,
> > > >> and whether any official shall have official immunity from suit.
>
> > > >> The above constructs come from Jon Roland of the Constitution Society.
> >http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm
>
> > > >> On 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has
> > > >>> to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things can be left
> > > >>> going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. There are
> > > >>> three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) The horrible
> > > >>> and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, elitist and
> > > >>> controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated
> > > >>> governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number (2.) is
> > > >>> responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media has to be a
> > > >>> top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen very quickly
> > > >>> following the ratification of my New Constitution. But fixing the
> > > >>> media will require monitoring what gets said and done and imprisoning
> > > >>> errant individuals, or shutting down any media not conforming to the
> > > >>> very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit:
> > > >>> "Bill of Rights and Amendments:
> > > >>> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment