million, because I have keen powers of observation; common sense; an
incredible work ethic; understanding of human nature; and an unselfish
motivation to improve the USA and the world. Most people starting to
write a new constitution would tire of the task after a month.
Everything I have written was for solving specific problems
highlighted in the news. If the Founding Fathers could have had the
power of foresight comparable to my hindsight (learning from what has
actually transcribed) they would back my efforts 100%. Like I've
said: I've spent at least ten times the total man hours spent by
those who made known physical contributions to the wording of the
Constitution. PLUS! I have had the benefit of using my computers to
help refine and arrange the many parts. Show us how YOU string
sentences together to solve a problem. I'm not ashamed of any part of
what I've done. But I'd bet you aren't bold enough to try writing
even one paragraph to improve the world. — John A. Armistead —
Patriot
On Apr 5, 3:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I am well aware of your previous claims as to why you ordered YOUR New
> Constitution as you did. I simply wanted to point out to those 300-plus
> million people who you deem to be less intellectual than yourself how
> ludicrous such a construction is.
>
> On 04/05/2011 11:56 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan: I've answered that same question numbers of times.
> > Obviously, you've not read very far back in my thread. The logical
> > reason for the order of my New Constitution is because I used the
> > original constitution as the model. My first step was to transcribe
> > the Constitution into my computer. I did this in the days before
> > there was big cut and paste. Only by transcribing the Constitution,
> > one key stroke at a time, does one come to realize how crudely written
> > the Constitution actually is. Except for the (after-thought) Bill of
> > Rights, there is very little other than an organizational structure in
> > the majority of the Constitution. Wherever possible, I 'fluffed out'
> > the document in those locations where the "subject heading" was
> > there. That's why Article III is so much longer. Anyone wishing to
> > find out about the Judiciary can still locate that in Article III.
> > And anyone wishing to see if their rights are still there can look for
> > the clarified and expanded Bill of Rights and Amendments. I invite
> > the readers to look at what I've written one sentence at a time. The
> > citizens�as individuals, not as 'puppet' members of biased groups�will
> > have incredibly more power, and more civil liberties! When the size
> > of government goes DOWN, civil liberties go UP! � J. A. Armistead �
> > Patriot
> > On Apr 4, 1:30 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> I have a simple question that even someone with your incredibly superior
> >> intelligence<g> should be able to answer.
>
> >> How is it YOUR New Constitution has a "1st Amendment" when it has yet to
> >> be viewed in its entirety, let alone ratified?
>
> >> On 04/04/2011 10:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Folks: A blushing, almost-kid-like Glenn Beck was on Bill O'Reilly's
> >>> TV program this week. It was discussed whether The Donald's ideas for
> >>> dealing with our economic woes make him a viable candidate for
> >>> President. O'Reilly said, "Yes." But Beck said he would prefer a
> >>> candidate who "just speaks the truth" (rather than one who has an
> >>> actual PLAN that works). As a regular laugher (mostly) at Glenn
> >>> Beck's e4 shows, his blackboards and shuffling of photos to
> >>> incriminate people have gotten old fast. His memorable shows are now
> >>> about one per month, where they used to be about one out of three. In
> >>> essence, he has run out of material. His having �oh-isn't-that-sweat�
> >>> shows like Mike Huckabee isn't improving the chances the USA will
> >>> survive. Nor is Beck�s delusion that our present broke, broke
> >>> government can be fixed if only the voters can be told... "the
> >>> truth". Beck is going on faith that towns (like in Ohio) can be saved
> >>> and countries, too, if only the good people in his viewing audience
> >>> can get the word...
> >>> At Fox News only two people stand out as selling the conservative
> >>> route to salvation for the USA: Stu Varney and Andrew Napolitano.
> >>> Sean Hannity continues to shoot-himself-in-the-foot by having Bob
> >>> Beckel, the socialist, Obama-loving traitor as his regular guest.
> >>> "Bob is a good friend," Hannity says. Anyone having Beckel as a
> >>> friend isn't fit to have air time in this country. My New
> >>> Constitution says:
> >>> "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."
> >>> "The freedom of a fair and pro democracy press..." means that NO
> >>> person hired by the media�as consultants, commentators or otherwise�
> >>> shall be allowed air time or print space to promote socialist or
> >>> communist ideals without that medium forfeiting their license. Folks,
> >>> "FAIR AND BALANCED" is pushing the USA to the brink of destruction!
> >>> Unless and until FOX News begins talking about saving the USA rather
> >>> than playing-up our many conflicts, for monetary (Jewish) gain, they
> >>> aren't worthy of any "conservative" acclaim. Britt Hume and Chris
> >>> Wallace, et. al are hurting the USA with every liberal word they
> >>> speak. O'Reilly�on conversational rudeness alone (interrupting and
> >>> wrongly summarizing what the guest wishes to say)�should be fired,
> >>> immediately. Apparently, if rudeness gets... viewers, FOX is in favor
> >>> of it.
> >>> I invite any of the readers to state views about FOX that might be
> >>> positive. For me, the corporate culture, there, is neutralizing most
> >>> potentially helpful aspects.
> >>> Respectfully submitted,
> >>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics
> >>> Those who might be interested are invited to read my book: "The
> >>> Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity." Such is available at
> >>> Amazon and B& N.
> >>> On Apr 1, 2:29 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> Talk, alone, can�t save the US economy and social order.
> >>>> This week Glenn Beck compared Judaism and Islam. He�s right that Jews
> >>>> are less harsh in dealing with �prohibited� activities than Muslims.
> >>>> But, apparently, Beck hasn�t considered the �hidden dangers� posed by
> >>>> the Jews in Israel that hurt the chances the world can
>
> ...
>
> 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