**JP** Daily Quran & Hadith

 

Sura al-Kahf	Sura : Makki	by Tilawat : 18	by Reveal : 69	Ruku` : 12	Ayats : 110	Part No. : 15,16

 

 

 

 

--

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

And once again we are blessed with more name calling. Who could have foreseen that?

On 2/28/2011 6:52 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  Jonathan, the jerk, is undeserving of a reply.  —J. A. A. — 

On Feb 26, 12:32 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  In almost all of your posts over the past few days, you have resorted to name calling - "the last resort of the desperate."  That you cannot tell the difference between an individualist, anti-conformist, voluntaryist who wants little or no government and a socialist-communist who relies upon government to suck the lifeblood out of everyone likely says volumes about YOUR New Constitution.  On 2/26/2011 3:59 AM, NoEinstein wrote:        

Jonathan, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts, that identifies you as a socialist-communist.  Bug-off, loser!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Feb 25, 11:55 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!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �  Patriot On Feb 23, 11:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley<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!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley<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>        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 

 ..  read more » 

--
"Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft"

Unions threaten TN

Candidate for TN Senate District 18, Kerry Roberts, could potentially lose an election due to the teachers' unions. The left-leaning Democrat unions are beginning to mobilize in this special election against Kerry Roberts. The election is on Tuesday March 8th.

The reality is that voter turnout will be minimal, but every teacher in the district will probably vote in this election because of their one pet issue. This could be a game changer and tilt the voter turn out against Ron Paul supporter Kerry Roberts.

The Tennessean has a brief but well written summary of the situation:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110215/HENDERSONVILLE01/110215059/2014/HENDERSONVILLE01/COLUMN-Kerry-Roberts-not-state-Senate-shoo-just-ask-him


PLEASE SUPPORT KERRY ROBERTS and help him win!

To volunteer for Kerry's campaign (make calls from home, post signs, etc) contact:
matt@kerryroberts.com

Donate here:
http://raisingitright.com/2010/12/22/support-kerry-roberts-for-tennessee-senate-district-18/

Join Kerry's FaceBook page here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kerry-Roberts/149263825121202?v=wall






Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current administration from transforming this country into something not intended by the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be deleted.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
To post to this group, send email to tea-party-patriots@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tea-party-patriots+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en
 
For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visit http://www.facebook.com/PatriotVille.

--
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.

Yemen and the Arab Awakening

Yemen and the Arab Awakening
Another US-supported tyrant is about to fall
by Justin Raimondo, February 28, 2011

Tens of thousands gather in the streets of Sa'na, demanding the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh­it's the Yemeni edition of the Great Arab Awakening sweeping the Middle East and toppling governments previously counted as US allies. Aside from framing events within this rather broad narrative, however, what is really going on inside Yemen­and why is it important to the rest of the world? What can we, as outsiders, really say about events there that has any reality apart from the ideological narratives we invent for our own purposes?

Such invention has been a staple of US policy in the region and "expert" commentary emanating from Washington, much of it originating with the present government of Yemen, headed up by President Ali Abdullah Saleh. According to the official Yemeni government line, the regime is facing as many as three "terrorist" threats: from rebels in the north, from secessionists in the south, and from the biggest bogeyman of them all­al Qaeda.

Let's start with the situation in the north, where Saleh is apparently taking his cues from another despot of the Gulf, King Hamad of Bahrain­who still insists the largely Shi'ite upsurge in his island kingdom is supported and motivated by the Iranians. The Saleh regime has similarly blamed Iran for inciting Shi'ite rebels in the northern provinces, who have been waging a growing insurgent campaign against the central government for the past five years.

This "outside troublemakers" narrative is advanced strictly for Western consumption, however, as the Zaydi sect of Shias, who make up the core of the insurgency, are theologically and ideologically distinct from their Shi'ite compatriots in faraway Tehran, with whom they have several important differences. While the government of Iran has made propagandistic noises in support of the uprising, there is no evidence of any concrete support, either financial or in the form of weapons. Tehran would certainly like to take credit for the insurgency, but as for taking any action­that is unlikely for several reasons.

The Zaydis reject the theocracy of Khomeini-ism, and have a more philosophical and rationalistic approach to theological matters. The sect was founded by Zayd ibn Ali, the leader of a failed rebellion against caliph Hissam, in 740. Unlike the Iranian Shia, whose theology lends itself to subjection to authority, the Zaydis hold to a semi-anarchistic worldview. This outlook is encoded in a political theory that starts off by recognizing the trinity of Ali, Hasan, and Husayn as the first three rightful Imams, and from that point departs from "mainstream" Shia theological and political theory in a dramatic way.

While most Shia recognize Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin as the true fourth Imam, the Zaydis depart from their Iranian counterparts on the issue of who constitutes his legitimate successor. The Iranians give the title to Muhammed Al-Baqir, but the Zaydis prefer Al-Baqir's brother Zayd­and hold that subsequent claimants to the imamate are legitimized only by those among their descendants who take up armed rebellion against tyrants, just as their founder did. Al-Baqir refused to fight against corruption, and therefore lost his legitimacy.

As the Ottoman empire descended into decadence and final dissolution, the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen, under Imam Yahya, a Zaydi, was declared an independent state in 1926. The Kingdom fought wars with the Saudis, who were impinging on Yemen's borders to the north, and also against the British protectorate in Aden, to the south. With the rise of Nasserism, however, there was pressure to join the Pan-Arabist movement, and Yemen briefly united in a loose confederation with Egypt and Syria: however, the union was never really consummated, and the Yemenis soon withdrew. This was followed by a palace coup in Sa'na, led by Nasserist officers who overthrew the monarchy and founded the Yemeni Arab Republic. Ali Abdullah Saleh emerged as the strongest of several competing strongmen, and was made President by order of a constitutional council.

In northern Yemen, there has been a revival of Zaydism, promoted by the powerful Houthi clan, and this has morphed, over the years, into a full-scale political movement. Houthis complain that the central government neglects the north, discriminates against northerners in allocating funding, and is in effect a dictatorship which only extracts whatever scarce resources exist in the poorest region of the poorest country in the Middle East. In effect, the Houthis are a separatist movement, which seeks to free itself from the tyranny of a secular but hardly democratic central government.

Sa'na also faces a separatist rebellion in the south, where the Southern Movement has been agitating for independence ever since the civil war of the 1990s, which pitted the remnants of the " People's Democratic Republic of Yemen" against the "reunified" central government in the capital. The PDRY had existed since the 1960s, created in the wake of the Nasserist Pan-Arab sentiment that swept the region as British colonialism retreated. Nationalist riots broke out in the south, with two rival leftist groups, the National Liberation Front (NLF) and the Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY) fighting each other as well as the Brits for control. Out of this turmoil, the NLF came out the victor, and proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Yemen, with an ultra-left faction taking control in 1969, inaugurating the PDRY, and setting up a one-party state based on the Russian model. The PDRY was in effect a member of the Soviet bloc, and aid poured in from the Kremlin and the Chinese. In the north, however, with its anti-authoritarian religious and social traditions, the new order was unwelcome, and royalist guerrillas fought the central government continuously.

With the implosion of the Soviet empire, the two Yemens agreed to reunite: but this "unity" was largely illusory. The defeat of the Yemeni Socialist Party and its allies in the subsequent elections, in which Saleh emerged the victor, led to rising tensions: the resulting stand-off soon culminated in all out civil war, which the north won decisively. The central government in Sa'na appointed military governors to rule over the southern provinces, and southerners were expelled from the army, and public service positions: southern Yemen was, in effect, occupied territory, subject to martial law. The Southern Movement grew out of the resistance to this draconian policy.

Faced by two separatist movements which threaten his power, President Saleh has become increasingly dependent on his American patrons, who have deemed his nation the latest front in the "war on terrorism." Al-Qaeda's Yemeni franchise is blamed for recent attacks on Western targets, including the fabled "Underpants Bomber" and the Fed-Ex bomb attempts. Tribes thought to be sympathetic to al-Qaeda have been hit with air strikes by US war planes, with the Yemenis taking "credit" for it until the truth was made public by WikiLeaks.

Washington has always been very careful not to criticize Saleh, who has held office since 1978. Until recently, he was following the example of Hosni Mubarak in arranging to have his son succeed him, and in all other respects his relations with the US and his own subjects has been distinctly Mubarakian: one man rule, a strict internal regime, and a flood of US aid at his disposal that made it possible for Saleh to dispose of those who could not be bought off.

What Saleh wasn't counting on was what he and his American patrons never saw coming: the Arab Awakening, which has toppled three despots in less than three months and threatens to overthrow him very shortly. Tens of thousands are marching all around the country demanding Saleh step down: efforts by the regime to placate the rising opposition with promises of "reform" and a vow by Saleh not to run for reelection have been for naught. Still, the crowds of protesters keep growing, and security forces have clamped down: government thugs have fired into crowds, killing dozens­and still the protests swell, centering in Sa'na but spreading throughout the country, north and south.

It's only a matter of time before Saleh follows Mubarak and Ben Ali into the trash bin of history, and meanwhile Washington is clueless as they try to save their client by mouthing the rhetoric of " reform." It is a repeat of the Egyptian events: a student-led movement that is secular, diverse, rooted in longstanding economic and historical grievances­and all but unstoppable.

What worries the US is that this interferes with their "war on terrorism," and could lead to what our rulers and their court intellectuals call a "failed state"­that is, a country freed of the constraints of a national government, in which localized social institutions take the place of a "modern" centralized state apparatus. Such a turn of events, they fear, will provide an opening for al-Qaeda, a power vacuum that Osama bin Laden and his allies in the region will surely fill.

This is pure scaremongering: the reality is that bin Laden and his local affiliate have next to zero support in Yemen. When the local al Qaeda franchise bombed the French oil tanker Limburg, in 2002, the result was an environmental disaster that flooded the waters off the port of Al-Dabbah with oil, costing millions of dollars in property damage and many thousands of jobs­an act not appreciated by the already impoverished population. In the largely Shi'ite north, the fanatical Sunni doctrines espoused by bin Laden have no appeal, and in the more developed central and southern provinces the students who are leading the movement to overthrow Saleh have no use for the austere doctrines of the terrorists.

Such support as Al Qaeda has in Yemen is from two sources: financial subsidies given to tribal leaders (hardly a sign of ideological enthusiasm, since these tribes also took bribes from the Marxists of the PDRY and from Saleh), and the infiltration of foreigners into the country, from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. There is no "Al Qaeda in Yemen," as such: only transnational operatives and such influence as money can buy. The idea that Yemen is a major "base" for Al Qaeda is a myth propagated by Washington, which is eager to open up as many "fronts" in the "war on terrorism" as they can possibly invent.

This time, however, their capacity for invention has got them in a quandary. Their puppet, "President" Saleh, is on the ropes, and the people are banging on the gates of his palace, demanding his ouster. As in Egypt, the Washington "experts" have been caught flat-footed, and US officials are scrambling to keep ahead of events­which, nevertheless, keep outpacing them.

The US empire in the Middle East was always a house of cards, and now that it is tumbling down its fragility seems so obvious that one wonders how it could have escaped our notice. In Yemen, and throughout the Middle East, American marionettes are reacting to the upsurge in stages: first, with indifference, then, as the protests grow, with threats, and then, belatedly, with attempts at appeasement. When even that doesn't work, they resort to outright repression, which is the stage we are in now in Yemen.

As the defections from Saleh's camp continue, and the situation devolves into what official Washington would describe as "chaos"­and which history will characterize as a democratic revolution­the US is faced with a stark choice: either intervene directly, or else take our chances with a roll of the dice and see if we can influence the victors.

In Egypt, we chose the latter: in Libya, it looks like we're inching toward the former. In Yemen, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a sudden "plot" by Al Qaeda is "discovered"­along with a pretext for a more direct form of US intervention, covert or overt, up to and including sending troops to "keep order."

This is a potentially risky course to take, but­unfortunately­one cannot imagine the leaders of the world's greatest superpower letting events take their course without trying to direct them in some way. That whatever action we take is likely to backfire in our faces is not going to deter the Washington know-it-alls, who think they can manipulate entire peoples like pawns on a chessboard.

Already the crowds in Sa'na are chanting slogans against the government that depict Saleh as the agent of Washington and Israel: if we want to create more anti-Americanism in the region, then­by all means­let us intervene. If, however, a miracle comes to pass, and we somehow neglect to stick our noses where we don't belong, perhaps a disaster can be avoided.

The idea that US interests in the region are at war with the natural impulse of people to be free is nonsense: we would gain more friends if we just stood aside and let the Arabs awaken from their long slumber. Instead, however, I fear we'll just try to lull them back to sleep again with empty promises of "reform"­and only succeed in provoking rising resentment. Whispering advice in the ears of President Saleh and King Hamad (of Bahrain) will not save either of these crooks from the wrath of their subjects. There's just one strategy that will work for Washington in this situation, and it can be summed up quite succinctly: get out of the way.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/27/yemen-and-the-arab-awakening/

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

>Sage 2: Our Constitution is inside of a bomb-proof vault. About a
>century ago, politicians learned how to pay the Constitution lip-
>service while working around the spirit of that WEAK document to do
>whatever they want.

And how will YOUR unseen panacea Constitution CHANGE this problem?
Did you include "Pretty Please" throughout?
Oh yeah ... you cannot tell us ... you cannot show us ... you are to
afraid that
this so-called masterpiece falls short and that a bunch of rank amateur
imbeciles (your premise) might demonstrate such to you. Oh the embarrassment!

>you don't qualify to judge my creative efforts for the benefit of the USA!

Yeah, apparently this thing does not exist.
Why else do we get endless pomposity, fallacy spews and no delivery?

Regard$,
--MJ

Our moment permits interest in one question only: Will we, of
Deadwood, be more than just targets for ass-fucking? -- Al Swearengen

--
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.

Dear Congress: Study War Some More

Dear Congress: Study War Some More
by Steve Breyman, February 28, 2011

Dear 112th Congress:

You are surely as inspired by events in Cairo, Tunis, and Benghazi as the rest of us. And you are surely as distressed by events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as your fellow Americans. Now is as good a time as any to face a grim fact: you and your recent predecessors are abject failures at one of your most important constitutional responsibilities­dealing with war. But you can still redeem yourselves, and do your constituents and your country a historic good turn in the meantime.

The Constitution requires you to declare, provide for, budget, and oversee war and the forces necessary for it. There are few if any analysts who believe you ably perform these duties. Instead, with the exception of funding, you've ceded much of this authority to a succession of presidents from both parties only too eager to supplant you. And with war funding, Congress has been little more than a bipartisan rubber stamp for presidents. To make matters even worse, Congress "pays" for war with money borrowed from foreigners and from future generations of American taxpayers. War spending is not an "investment in the future" like your allocations for scientific research or green energy development. Congress would've provided a greater public service had it taken the trillion borrowed dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan and started a giant bonfire with the money on the National Mall.

Your best attempt to rein in presidential war making­the War Powers Act­did not restore your authority or pride, and it did not prevent your grievous mistakes after 9/11. With the exception of the one-time need for "authorizations of force," and enormous semi-annual infusions of men, money, and materiel, presidents prefer to leave Congress out of the war equation.

Contrary to the refrain of the iconic African-American spiritual, it makes sense for legislators responsible for it to study war. Studies of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of America's military omnipresence around the world, constitute an invaluable and growing library. The studies, from a wide swath of think-tanks and academic researchers across the political spectrum, show, virtually without exception, that it'd be much smarter and cheaper for Congress to end the wars and the omnipresence. Peace and a reduced global American military footprint would be diplomatically, politically, economically, and culturally better for the country. Ending the wars would save American lives and those of other peoples. Closing bases overseas and returning deployed forces to the U.S. will have the same local and regional economic benefits in those places that we've seen from conversion at home.

Neither of the current wars is or was necessary. There were and are alternatives. Nearing retirement, this is now the view of Defense Secretary Robert Gates too. Neither of the wars can be presently shown to do anything but harm to U.S. national security. Both ramped up­not reduced­the terrorist danger to America. Think about it: where's the upside to 10 years of war in Afghanistan (besides to war profiteers)? It reduces the jihadist threat to the homeland? We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? You're kidding, right?

The Obama administration admits that al-Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is negligible. It also admits that war in Afghanistan inflames the border provinces­if not the whole­of Pakistan. It's past time to declare victory in Afghanistan and bring all fighting forces home. If the war was about ending safe havens for terrorists in Afghanistan, then it has succeeded. If it was about removing the Taliban regime, then it has succeeded. If it was about showing American resolve and fortitude, then it has worked. If it was about vengeance for 9/11, then it has worked. If it was about helping deform Pakistani politics, then it has worked. If it was about making Afghanistan safe for Chinese and Indian enterprises, then it has worked. If it was about stimulating the opium trade, then it has worked. Etc. Remind me: why are we still there? Rather than being afraid of "losing Afghanistan," President Obama appears to be afraid of winning.

The bloody road to freedom in the Middle East will likely lead to the demise of al-Qaeda. Much of the draw of al-Qaeda's brand of jihad will disappear if and when popular rule comes to the lands from which it recruits. Why sneak away from your hometown to join al-Qaeda in the Maghreb if you now have real prospects for meaningful political participation? As political and economic opportunity grows in the region, al-Qaeda's allure for the young and alienated will shrink. As American troops come home from Iraq, a large chunk of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia's reason for being evaporates. We'll see the same trend in Afghanistan. Why let some fast-talking mullah lure you into the Taliban if you have educational and commercial alternatives, and the Americans are gone?

Remaining American forces in Iraq should be withdrawn on schedule, regardless of pressure from the Pentagon. No serious threat to the United States or its allies emanates today from Iraq. Rather than extend the U.S. combat presence in Afghanistan to 2014 or beyond, as the current plan appears to (likely unbeknownst to you), Congress should help the president and vice president deliver on their promise to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops this summer. Any additional funds you provide for the war beyond this fiscal year should be limited to ensuring the safe and orderly redeployment home of all American combat forces.

I understand this is not easy for you. You are mostly not military or foreign policy experts yourselves. There is no irresistible pressure on you from the peace movement in your district or state at present to end the wars. Many of you have defense industries or military facilities in your districts or states. Many of you fear being targeted by pro-war lobbies, presidents, or challengers. There has, thus far, been little or no political cost for you to say yes to the wars and their gargantuan human and economic costs.

There is no easy solution to the dilemma. It's far easier to say "end the wars through the power of the purse" than it is to do it. In the final analysis, however, as in Southeast Asia in the early 1970s, that's how American participation in these wars will end. Your colleagues then said "enough is enough" and refused to appropriate further monies. Presidents appear incapable of taking such steps themselves, and for some of the same reasons.

Will it require uncommon valor to snap the war purse shut? Yes. Will you be vilified by that very small number of us who benefit from the wars? Yes. Will you demonstrate rare independence from a president on questions of war and peace? Yes. Will you, most importantly, be forever esteemed by veterans, parents and families of deployed service personnel, a growing majority of your constituents, and other taxpayers? Yes.

Sincerely,

Steve Breyman

http://original.antiwar.com/breyman/2011/02/27/dear-congress/

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Sage 2: Our Constitution is inside of a bomb-proof vault. About a
century ago, politicians learned how to pay the Constitution lip-
service while working around the spirit of that WEAK document to do
whatever they want. I've corrected hundreds of problems too broad in
scope to just be impossible to pass amendments. I've avoided all of
the wasted talk (Empty ritual) and done what is best for the whole
country. Your supposing the present Constitution is OK simply won't
FIX the dire structural problems needing fixing. Until you've
actually done creative effort, you don't qualify to judge my creative
efforts for the benefit of the USA!
>
On Feb 26, 11:11 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>        Hey Keith, Mark et al,
>
>      Suffice it to say that OUR Constitution need never be rewritten
> nor changed, but from time to time revisited to it's original intent
> and meaning, less personal interpretation. " It is what it is " and
> was not intended to be anything more nor anything less than that. The
> only true recourse the founding fathers wisely gave us was the "
> amendment " and even they should be rare and few. We should not try to
> fix what ain't broke by breaking that which don't need fixing !
>
> *************************************************************************** *********************************************************
>
> On Feb 26, 6:31 am, KeithInSeoul <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greetings from Seoul Korea John!
>
> > Uhm.....This seems to me, to be, "Much Ado, About Nothing".....
>
> > We'd all like to read your "New Constitution";  but if ya don't want to
> > share it with the group, that is your perogative.
>
> > The purpose of Political Forum is to share political thought, ideas,
> > commentary and opinion, as well as to comment on government, politics, world
> > affairs and current events.  (And occasionally,  pro football and
> > baseball!)  Your posts I find sometimes interesting and usually thought
> > provoking, so therein lied my initial interest in you posting your, "New
> > Constitution".   It was never my intent to get a shit storm started!
>
> > If you take the time to read both Jonathan's and Michael's posts, you will
> > find that both men are thoughtful, and probably share many of the same
> > concerns as you do.  I consider myself a conservative libertarian, (not so
> > much a capitalist as I am one who beleives in protection of free market
> > enterprise, and I believe that there is a distinction between a, "free
> > market"  versus an economic system such as capitalism, of which I also
> > support and subscribe to.   Jonathan and Michael are damn near anarchists,
> > (and I say that with a smile on my face, I don't think either would agree
> > with me!!)  but the point being, is that instead of taking the route of many
> > of the nasty, hateful rhetorical smear merchants from the far left,  (e.g.;
> > the Wacko left socialist-elitist Moonbats)  who from time to time and on
> > occasion chime in here;  I would like to think that the thoughtful, well
> > reasoned conservative voices of Politicall Forum can have discussion, as
> > well as disagreement with a little more civility!
>
> > At any rate,  have a good Saturday....Mine is almost over!
>
> > KeithInSeoul
>
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > MJ:  You are NOT wanted on this post!  In the last few weeks you've
> > > managed to give your cook-booked quotations of others, and your own
> > > breakfast-table-written "constitution" of sorts.  But you have not
> > > even gone back into my thread to read about my New Constitution, which
> > > is detailed in essays that highlight the apt portions of my document.
> > > And you obviously have no "Regard$" for anyone but yourself.  ***
> > > Since my base philosophy is pro-capitalism and pro minimumist
> > > government, when you attack me—the author-messenger—you are revealing
> > > yourself to be a socialist and probably a communist.  If it offends
> > > you that I have figured you out, take your "quotes" and your "regards"
> > > elsewhere.  You are not wanted here!  — J. A. A. —  Patriot
>
> > > On Feb 25, 10:45 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > And yet ANOTHER fallacy spew.
> > > > Let's see this panacea of yours. What -- exactly
> > > > -- are you afraid of? That it is shit?
>
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
>
> > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > > At 10:36 AM 2/25/2011, you wrote:
>
> > > > >Dear MJ:  You sir, are a total BUM!  What I have written describing my
> > > > >New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> > > > >fill several "War and Peace"-size novels.  Not a single WORD of what I
> > > > >have written supports socialism nor communism!  I am in favor of
> > > > >having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> > > > >zero interaction with individual citizens.  'My' government will no
> > > > >longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> > > > >value-added, only.  And I have nixed having the government maintain
> > > > >records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> > > > >Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> > > > >the person they failed to convict the last time.  My corrections of
> > > > >corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> > > > >enough to ratify my New Constitution!  Presently, the USA is a police
> > > > >state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures.  And
> > > > >the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate.  I've put
> > > > >them in their place, big time!
>
> > > > >You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher.  I do not appreciate in
> > > > >the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> > > > >of some kind.  Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> > > > >not mine.  I am not playing games, here.  If you would like to get
> > > > >back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> > > > >two paragraphs or less.  Unless I see the words:  "I pro-capitalist
> > > > >and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> > > > >just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> > > > >Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > > > >the latter.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > >On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > > > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > > > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > > > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > > > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see
> > > it'.
> > > > > > Pity.
>
> > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > > > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you 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>
> > > > > > >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>
> > >  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
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Anointed One: There is no greater "INPUT" than to allow the
voters to decide for themselves whether to have a New Constitution.
It is YOU who are the bad guy, here. Why are you attacking my efforts
to save this country from the corruption that is so evident? — J. A.
A. —
>
On Feb 26, 2:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> my comment is the reverse... trying to re-write and institute the
> basic the basic laws of any country without the active input of the
> whole of society  makes you a Fascist and supporter of dictators.
>
> On Feb 26, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts; and
> > since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", that
> > identifies you as a socialist-communist.  Bug-off, loser!  — J. A. A.
> > —
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:27 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <<<<Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > > the latter.>>>
>
> > > Funny, hitler and Qadaffi said the same thing. Fine company there.
>
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Dear MJ:  You sir, are a total BUM!  What I have written describing my
> > > > New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> > > > fill several "War and Peace"-size novels.  Not a single WORD of what I
> > > > have written supports socialism nor communism!  I am in favor of
> > > > having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> > > > zero interaction with individual citizens.  'My' government will no
> > > > longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> > > > value-added, only.  And I have nixed having the government maintain
> > > > records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> > > > Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> > > > the person they failed to convict the last time.  My corrections of
> > > > corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> > > > enough to ratify my New Constitution!  Presently, the USA is a police
> > > > state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures.  And
> > > > the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate.  I've put
> > > > them in their place, big time!
>
> > > > You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher.  I do not appreciate in
> > > > the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> > > > of some kind.  Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> > > > not mine.  I am not playing games, here.  If you would like to get
> > > > back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> > > > two paragraphs or less.  Unless I see the words:  "I pro-capitalist
> > > > and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> > > > just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> > > > Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > > > the latter.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> > > > > Pity.
>
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you 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>
> > > > > >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>  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;
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Anointed One: You aren't very well informed. Nancy Pelosi,
Harry Reid and their ilk will all be hanged for TREASON for trying to
turn the USA into a socialist Nation. Read the 40% of my New
Constitution in the thread, and you will see that I empower the
PEOPLE, not me. Everyone in the USA will benefit, whether they
realize it or not. Having a small, efficient, and deferential
government, and a prosperous free enterprise system is the "Shortest
Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity." (That's the name of my book at
Amazon and B. & N.) Check it out! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Feb 26, 2:03 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people",
>
> I did not do that.... your own words and attitudes reflected in them
> mirror Pelosi to a "T".
>
> On Feb 26, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Mark, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts; and
> > since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", that
> > identifies you as a socialist-communist.  Bug-off, loser!  — J. A. A.
> > —
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:27 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <<<<Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > > the latter.>>>
>
> > > Funny, hitler and Qadaffi said the same thing. Fine company there.
>
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Dear MJ:  You sir, are a total BUM!  What I have written describing my
> > > > New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> > > > fill several "War and Peace"-size novels.  Not a single WORD of what I
> > > > have written supports socialism nor communism!  I am in favor of
> > > > having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> > > > zero interaction with individual citizens.  'My' government will no
> > > > longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> > > > value-added, only.  And I have nixed having the government maintain
> > > > records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> > > > Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> > > > the person they failed to convict the last time.  My corrections of
> > > > corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> > > > enough to ratify my New Constitution!  Presently, the USA is a police
> > > > state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures.  And
> > > > the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate.  I've put
> > > > them in their place, big time!
>
> > > > You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher.  I do not appreciate in
> > > > the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> > > > of some kind.  Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> > > > not mine.  I am not playing games, here.  If you would like to get
> > > > back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> > > > two paragraphs or less.  Unless I see the words:  "I pro-capitalist
> > > > and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> > > > just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> > > > Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > > > the latter.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> > > > > Pity.
>
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you 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>
> > > > > >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>  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
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Better than yours? How could one determine such
when you seek to keep it hidden?
What is 'better'?
I believe you overestimate many things.

Posit this panacea Constitution of yours already.
I guarantee that this Group will find at least
one flaw -- I am guessing more, but all it takes is 1.
MOST are probably concluding at this point that it simply does not exist.

Regard$,
--MJ

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but
only in the sense and to the extent that we
respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and
his children smart. -- H.L. Mencken

>Dear Anointed one: Do this: Form the best committee you can and
>write us a better constitution. After several years of effort, you'll
>realize that it would have been better to let the smartest man around
>(me) do the writing. That benefits everyone except those who wish to
>have their fingers in every pie. But be it known: "Those without
>ability should never be allowed in the kitchen!" — J. A. A. —

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Anointed one: Do this: Form the best committee you can and
write us a better constitution. After several years of effort, you'll
realize that it would have been better to let the smartest man around
(me) do the writing. That benefits everyone except those who wish to
have their fingers in every pie. But be it known: "Those without
ability should never be allowed in the kitchen!" — J. A. A. —
>
On Feb 26, 2:01 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
> committee."
>
> Yes indeed it is (in your mind). A camel is so well suited for its use
> where it exists that only fools own horses there. A horse is not
> capable of doing a camels work... and with the exception of speed
> (both in km/h and to the grave)... the inverse is not true.... try
> again.
>
> On Feb 26, 5:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mark, one of the airheads:  "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
> > committee."   I happen to be among the most intelligent people ever
> > born on this Earth.  I could have gone into... politics (God forbid!)
> > and had my talents negated in committees and in the daily empty
> > RITUAL.  I had seen how departed from the Constitution our government
> > had become, and decided that the only solution would be to make our
> > constitution STRONGER.  Along the way, I realized that too many really
> > important things were being left for being defined in subsequent
> > laws.  So, I gradually added-in items that most Americans will
> > recognize as affecting their daily lives.  Having those things be
> > visible in the New Constitution, itself, will have government working
> > quite well without "trusting" that the House (There will be no
> > senate.) can write some good laws.  The best way to assure that only
> > good laws, acceptable to the majority of Americans, will be passed, is
> > my having raised the minimum vote for passage to 60%.  (Note: 55% is
> > probationary, only.)  I've also denied the media access to the
> > capital.  That will remove most of the ego component from those
> > wishing to be "important", because they are in the public eye all the
> > time.  I require that House members never have held public office nor
> > been employed by government (other than for possible military
> > service).  So, there will be no more... "career" politicians!  And I
> > limit the total number of... lawyers in public office to 20%,
> > maximum.  Restrictions on lawyers in businesses, also, is crucial to
> > improving the working climate in this country, so no business will
> > ever try to take unfair advantage of their employees nor their
> > customers.  Read back into my thread.  I really don't have time to
> > keep "capsuling" my document—which has been developed over a 14-year
> > period to benefit the majority of Americans.  — John A. Armistead —
> > Patriot
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:24 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My dearest Einstein.... it is misspelt on purpose... I am certainly NOT
> > > Anointed...
>
> > > Since you would like to be correct in all things... THIS IS AN INTERNET
> > > FORUM
>
> > > Definition is: An *Internet forum*, or *message board*, is an online
> > > discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted
> > > messages.
>
> > > What you are looking for is a self-serving BLOG as all members on a forum do
> > >  have the right to respond to ANYTHING as they see fit in civil tone.
>
> > > As to what you have done.... about twenty years to write a set of (your
> > > description) unfinished rules in the form of a constitution that you do want
> > > everyone to praise but don't want anyone to read or comment on... how Pelosi
> > > of you.
>
> > > There are reasons that documents such as you are trying to produce are done
> > > by committee,at least with intelligent and educated people  involved they
> > > are. There are reasons that every draft is sent to several people for input
> > > and polishing...
>
> > > If those reasons escape you or you are not willing for whatever reason  then
> > > it will die  with you.
>
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:41 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Anointed One:  You can't even spell your own handle.  I'm posting
> > > > NOT to get anyone's feed-back, but simply to inform people what I've
> > > > done.  Frankly, I have better things to do than to banter with
> > > > shallows like you.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Your response to people is:  <<<< 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>>>
>
> > > > > How VERY Nancy Pelosi of you.
>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Anointed One:  If you agree with the mega pages I've written
> > > > > > explaining my New Constitution, I welcome you support.  But when you
> > > > > > simply copy what I wrote, and substitute your own pet ideas, I'm not
> > > > > > sure if you are for a better and tougher constitution or not.
> > > > > > Concisely stated replies will be appreciated.  —  John A. Armistead —
> > > > > > Patriot
>
> > > > > > On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> 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."
>
> > > > > > > (The Anointed One wrote:) Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the
> > > > DEMS slammed down your throats.
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein <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
>
> ...
>
> 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.