Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Yet every time you resort to name calling to dodge questions regarding YOUR New Constitution you are being dishonest.

On 03/04/2011 10:24 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Sage 2:  Honesty is my watchword.  — J. A. A. — 

On Mar 3, 7:43 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote: 

          John,           Opine as you wish, but the next time you take a moon shot make sure the trajectory is accurate. Or not!  *************************************************************************** *****************************************************  On Mar 3, 9:44 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:        

Dear Sage 2:  Supposedly, a "Sage" is someone who has wisdom. However, you don't seem to realize that the present Constitution is so weak, that such didn't prevent the 'progressive' decline of our government from the ideals of the Founding Fathers.  My New Constitution INCLUDES every single worthy concept of the original! And it builds upon those.  Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones. In dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become public servants.  Those will KNOW that they work for the public, because I empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the New Constitution, to fire any public employee who violates his or her civil rights or the New Constitution.  And there will be little second- guessing of that citizen's decision, because contesting such will put the one fired in jeopardy of going to prison if they fail. 

"This New Constitution empowers every Citizen with broad civil rights that they may invoke at will without the necessity for the prior involvement of counsel or of a judicial authority.  Those in or working for governments shall be subordinate to any Citizen demanding civil rights.  The rightfulness of any such demand may be brought into question only by just and comprehensive proof—delivered at a later date in writing—with the apt named official(s) being in full jeopardy of such punishments as are herein defined, if they are in error." 

— John A. Armistead —  Partiot 

  On Mar 2, 11:26 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote: 

           Hi Keith,Mark and John 

         The weakness is not in the Constitution but in the fact that we have moved away from it's original intent. To make a long history short we have become a two party oligarchy whereby the politicians represent themselves their "shadows" and their " phantoms"; not the American public nor The Constitution.  This is evident in the fact that many in both parties try to undermine and discredit the grassroots movement known as The Tea Party. It is their worse nightmare. Fortunately it is a nightmare they will have to live with for a long time. The process then is not to rewrite The U.S. Constitution but to restore IT and restore power back to the American people. Only then will the intentions of the " founding fathers " be realized again ! *************************************************************************** ******************************************************** 

On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote: 

Dear Sage 2:  Consider this:  If our original Constitution was so perfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers?  It did so because that document is WEAK!  There was an assumption that elected officials would be motivated to do what is best for the country (ha!).  But everyone knows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance of getting re elected.  Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.  But my New Constitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism—the anti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers.  I suspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate. Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings about the free-market capitalist system that made the USA great.  And about your ideas on the role of government in such an economy.  Thanks.  — John A. Armistead, — Patriot — 

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" 

 ..  read more » 

--

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

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Again, more cut and paste name calling.

When will you start defending YOUR New Constitution?

On 03/04/2011 10:22 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  Jonathan Ashley is a socialist-communist and is thus undeserving of a reply!  — J. A. A.  — 

On Mar 4, 12:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  You have claimed you don't like my "tone." By that, I assume you mean you don't like my attitude. Yet here you begin another post by attacking someone who doesn't agree with your belief that we need YOUR New Constitution. Does that not imply that "tone" when used by YOU is okay but "tone" when used by someone else is not okay?  You stated to Sage that YOUR "New Constitution INCLUDES every single worthy concept of the original!" How did you determine what concepts are worthy of keeping? How did you decide which concepts to discard? Why won't you post YOUR New Constitution somewhere so that we can decide for ourselves whether that statement is true?  You went on to state, "Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones. In dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become public servants." Should you not have stated YOUR New Constitution will "control the quality of the people who can become public servants"? Or, was "I control" a Freudian slip showing your true egotistical nature?  You went on, "Those will KNOW that they work for the public, because I empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the New Constitution..." (Once again, the egotistical dictator in you is oozing forth. But I digress.) Question: Who will ever be conversant on YOUR New Constitution? You refuse to let anyone read it.  You continued with, "...to fire any public employee who violates his or her civil rights or the New Constitution." I kind of like this concept. I would end up firing every government employee that aggresses against my right to life, liberty, and property. Bye-bye Mr. Taxman! Bye-bye TSA agent! Gee! This is fun.  This part bothers me a bit: "And there will be little second-guessing of that citizen's decision, because contesting such will put the one fired in jeopardy of going to prison if they fail." Will those government employees innocently accused of having aggressed against a citizen not contest that citizen's decision for fear of going to jail? Who will be the arbitrator? Will we need to build more prisons? Who will pay for the housing of all those prisoners? You know government officials are not likely to go quietly into the night.  I'll leave the second paragraph for others to dissect.  On 3/3/2011 6:44 AM, NoEinstein wrote:        

Dear Sage 2:  Supposedly, a "Sage" is someone who has wisdom. However, you don't seem to realize that the present Constitution is so weak, that such didn't prevent the 'progressive' decline of our government from the ideals of the Founding Fathers.  My New Constitution INCLUDES every single worthy concept of the original! And it builds upon those.  Our problems are primarily PERSONNEL ones. In dozens of ways, I control the quality of the people who can become public servants.  Those will KNOW that they work for the public, because I empower ever law-abiding citizen, who is conversant on the New Constitution, to fire any public employee who violates his or her civil rights or the New Constitution.  And there will be little second- guessing of that citizen's decision, because contesting such will put the one fired in jeopardy of going to prison if they fail. 

"This New Constitution empowers every Citizen with broad civil rights that they may invoke at will without the necessity for the prior involvement of counsel or of a judicial authority.  Those in or working for governments shall be subordinate to any Citizen demanding civil rights.  The rightfulness of any such demand may be brought into question only by just and comprehensive proof�delivered at a later date in writing�with the apt named official(s) being in full jeopardy of such punishments as are herein defined, if they are in error." 

� John A. Armistead �  Partiot 

   On Mar 2, 11:26 pm, Sage2<wisdom...@gmail.com>  wrote: 

            Hi Keith,Mark and John 

          The weakness is not in the Constitution but in the fact that we have moved away from it's original intent. To make a long history short we have become a two party oligarchy whereby the politicians represent themselves their "shadows" and their " phantoms"; not the American public nor The Constitution.  This is evident in the fact that many in both parties try to undermine and discredit the grassroots movement known as The Tea Party. It is their worse nightmare. Fortunately it is a nightmare they will have to live with for a long time. The process then is not to rewrite The U.S. Constitution but to restore IT and restore power back to the American people. Only then will the intentions of the " founding fathers " be realized again ! *************************************************************************** ******************************************************** 

On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  wrote: 

Dear Sage 2:  Consider this:  If our original Constitution was so perfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers?  It did so because that document is WEAK!  There was an assumption that elected officials would be motivated to do what is best for the country (ha!).  But everyone knows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance of getting re elected.  Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.  But my New Constitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism�the anti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers.  I suspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate. Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings about the free-market capitalist system that made the USA great.  And about your ideas on the role of government in such an economy.  Thanks.  ï¿½ John A. Armistead, � Patriot � 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!  ï¿½ 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 

 ..  read more » 

--

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

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Name calling doesn't cut it, John.

You have yet to answer a single question I have asked you. Why are you so intent on dodging questions? Could it be that YOUR New Constitution is all fluff and no substance?

On 03/04/2011 10:22 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  Jonathan Ashley is a socialist-communist and is thus undeserving of a reply!  — J. A. A.  — 

On Mar 4, 11:10 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

*John,  You certainly live in a twisted mind. How did you deduce from reading "a brief post" of mine in which I expressed my "dislike of big government" and my "desire to have power returned to the people and to the States" that I am "ticked-off" that anyone, like YOU, "could single-handedly fix all of the problems"?  Better yet, how could you possibly conclude by reading anything I have posted to this forum that I am a "socialist-communist ... undeserving of a reply" - a statement you made earlier in this very thread?  I asked ten simple questions regarding only a minor portion of your response to Keith and you dodged them all by stating, "None of the ten thousand details is up for discussion unless a person has a considerate tone..." **If you don't like my tone or the tone of others who challenge you on this forum, how will you deal with the boat-load of crap and sarcasm that will be heaved upon you IF YOUR New Constitution is ever presented to the masses?* * Had I spent further time dissecting your short response to Keith, I am sure I would have had at least ten more questions. So one must ask, How can you possibly believe you are capable of "single-handedly" fixing "all of the problems"?  I have reached the opinion that anything having to do with YOUR New Constitution must result in "it's my way or the highway" for you. You obviously have no tolerance for criticism. Therefor, one must conclude you are not open to suggestions. Without being open to criticism and suggestions, YOUR New Constitution will never see the light of day.  *On 3/3/2011 6:14 AM, NoEinstein 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 

 ..  read more » 

--

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

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

It seems to me that John A. Armistead — Patriot — has wasted a lot of time. Not only will he not post his alleged masterpiece (which he claims has taken him 14 years to complete), he has allowed the current government many, many years to further decompose.

Since he claims to have all the answers, why has he not enticed the masses to accept his solutions?


On 03/04/2011 10:14 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Sage 2:  Apparently, you can't understand the difference between assessing the problems with our government and FIXING the problems. Like I've told you, the Constitution was too "trusting" that quality people would get elected to office.  The Founding Fathers had no way of realizing the negative effects of having the elitist media treat elected officials like ROYALTY.  The ego maniacal, career politicians we now have in Washington (mostly lawyers) desired supposed public service to make them feel more important.  The effect of that is to have only ego maniacs willing to vie for public service.  But I want salt-of-the-Earth types to represent us!  So, I take the media out of the equation and limit our representatives to those who have NEVER held public office before.  Please realize that I don't have the time nor the motivation to keep justifying my spending fourteen years writing my New Constitution, only to have a "shallow" like you claim that no changes are needed. My guess is that you are hoping in your heart that I don't get to FIX the problems, because you like the unfair inequities in this country just as they are.  If you can't change your thinking relative to my efforts, this will be the last time I ever reply to you.  — John A. Armistead —  Patriot 

On Mar 2, 11:26 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote: 

           Hi Keith,Mark and John           The weakness is not in the Constitution but in the fact that we have moved away from it's original intent. To make a long history short we have become a two party oligarchy whereby the politicians represent themselves their "shadows" and their " phantoms"; not the American public nor The Constitution.  This is evident in the fact that many in both parties try to undermine and discredit the grassroots movement known as The Tea Party. It is their worse nightmare. Fortunately it is a nightmare they will have to live with for a long time. The process then is not to rewrite The U.S. Constitution but to restore IT and restore power back to the American people. Only then will the intentions of the " founding fathers " be realized again ! *************************************************************************** ********************************************************  On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:        

Dear Sage 2:  Consider this:  If our original Constitution was so perfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers?  It did so because that document is WEAK!  There was an assumption that elected officials would be motivated to do what is best for the country (ha!).  But everyone knows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance of getting re elected.  Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.  But my New Constitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism—the anti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers.  I suspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate. Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings about the free-market capitalist system that made the USA great.  And about your ideas on the role of government in such an economy.  Thanks.  — John A. Armistead, — Patriot — 

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 

 ..  read more » 

--

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

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Respect is earned. Your incessant name calling does nothing to enhance your chances of earning my respect.

Post YOUR New Constitution and defend it. If it's worthy of respect, I will bestow respect upon it.

On 03/04/2011 09:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  Those without manners (respect for me) like Jonathan, the socialist-communist, are undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. — 

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 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." And ... "It shall be a felony 

 ..  read more » 

--

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

How the Constitution Enabled Socialism and Fascism in America

"When you get right down to it, there is no actual private ownership of something without the right to control what is privately owned, and the right to be free from outside intrusions against that which is privately owned. Such intrusions used to be called "theft" and "trespass." In other words, without 100% authority and sovereignty over their businesses and property, and under the Rule of Law that forbids such theft or trespassing -- including by agents of the State -- owners don't really own their businesses and property."
 
How the Constitution Enabled Socialism and Fascism in America
by Scott Lazarowitz
March 04, 2011

Even though Barack Obama is still president, the conservatives are already suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome, as they constantly label Obama a "socialist," just as the left continue to label George W. Bush a "fascist." This is strange, given that Bush is also a socialist and Obama is also a fascist. Go figure.

But the more I have thought about these issues, the more I have realized there is not much difference between socialism and fascism. And with essentially total government control over every aspect of our daily lives, while America is presumably a "capitalist" society, it is really more communist than capitalist.
 
Now, "capitalism" didn't originally refer to free markets and voluntary trade and commerce, as The Freeman editor Sheldon Richman has noted. And both socialism and fascism involve a nasty relationship between the State and the society's wealth, property and the means of production. One refers to State or "public" ownership of property, wealth and the means of production (socialism), and one refers to State control of property, wealth and the means of production (fascism).
 
When you get right down to it, there is no actual private ownership of something without the right to control what is privately owned, and the right to be free from outside intrusions against that which is privately owned. Such intrusions used to be called "theft" and "trespass." In other words, without 100% authority and sovereignty over their businesses and property, and under the Rule of Law that forbids such theft or trespassing -- including by agents of the State -- owners don't really own their businesses and property.
 
As Richman has pointed out, we have never really had any kind of "free market capitalism" in America that would include genuine private property ownership and control. But the "capitalism" that we have had since America's founding has been State capitalism, the enmeshment between private businesses and the State. ("Crony capitalism" and "corporatism" are different terms, with aspects very similar to, if not the same as, State capitalism.)
 
But I see America's State capitalism as consisting of two parts: socialism and fascism. The fascism is in which private ownership of wealth and property exists (at least in theory) but the State really has the final word on how the people may or may not use or trade such wealth or property. And the socialism is through the State's claiming ownership of private wealth through seizure (taxation) for redistribution, either directly with welfare programs or indirectly through protectionism or regulatory measures on behalf of the corporate special interests of those currently in power, which is actually a good way to describe fascism: indirect redistribution of wealth via State compulsion.
 
The moral decay that is so pervasive in America is a direct result of the State capitalism, socialism and fascism that have been institutionalized throughout our society. When one institutionalizes theft and trespass, and allows one segment of society -- the agents of the State -- to be above the law, one has institutionalized immorality and criminality.
 
So how is the current system different from communism, which is total State ownership and control of the means of production (including the people)? Can we ever get America to be the principled, morally sound society of freedom under the Rule of Law that the Founders envisioned?
 
Congressman Ron Paul has been emphasizing, especially in a recent C-Span interview, the "moral hazard" of various federal government intrusions. Dr. Paul speaks mainly of the moral hazard of central economic planning through the Federal Reserve's control over our monetary system, the dollar, which Americans are compelled by law to use for trade and commerce, as well as the moral hazard of the Fed's inflationary policies. But he has also discussed the moral hazard of government's entitlement programs such as the nearly bankrupt and bankrupting Medicare, and now ObamaCare, and the irresponsibility underlying Keynesian economic policies of deficit spending and debts.
 
Many critics of ObamaCare, a recent moral hazard to come out of Washington, have labeled such policies as "socialized medicine." But in reality, while it is socialistically funded through redistribution of wealth schemes, ObamaCare is essentially a fascist scheme, in which medical and insurance providers remain privately owned, but much of their control is seized by the State. In the case of ObamaCare, as with previous socialist/fascist intrusions by the State into Americans' private medical and economic matters, the State capitalism aspect is the revolving door between private medical and drug company executives and some of their board of director members, and federal government agencies such as HHS, FDA, etc. The wheeling and dealing between these companies' lobbyists and powerful members of Congress is one big example of the moral decay that State capitalism, socialism and fascism have wrought.
 
But how did such immoral schemes actually develop in America?
 
Since America's founding, the growing centralization of federal power over the states was a major influence, and became an established blueprint for Total Federal Government Rule with President Abe Lincoln. During that time, besides winning his war in which the inhabitants of the South were then compelled through armed force to rejoin association in a federal union to which they did not want to belong, Lincoln further enslaved the people of the South, and the North (and the West), by instituting federal legal tender laws and the National Bank Act. This was despite the Founders' arguing against paper money and warning that such policies essentially effect in debasing the currency and would cause economic turmoil. With the exception of big government centralist Alexander Hamilton, the Founders opposed central banks as well.
 
In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson, and his adherents in Congress and their special interest supporters on Wall Street along with the national cartel of Big Banks, wanted to solidify the federal stronghold over the workers and producers' income and savings. Of course, they didn't exactly put it in those words, but their new income tax and the creation of the Federal Reserve were to be the two new institutions that would do the job.
 
Despite the Founders' warnings against government theft of private property, the income tax was the way to employ coercion and threats of violence against the people and compel them to do extra labor in order to serve the government, and was the collectivists' way to institutionalize covetousness and fund the dreams of State expansionism of those in power.
 
The Federal Reserve was the further strengthening of centralized control over the people's wealth, savings and income well beyond Lincoln's National Bank Act and legal tender laws. Through the Fed's compulsory monopolization of currency, new valueless money is printed out of thin air and circulated into the entire economic system, first to the biggest banks, their executives and the politically connected elites, and then eventually to the rest of us (that is, what's left of it). Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's quantitative easing is a perfect example of that.
 
The Federal Reserve is essentially fascist, in that its compulsory powers control the people's allegedly privately-owned wealth, but it is also a socialist redistribution of wealth scheme. As Murray Rothbard put it, well before Bernanke's QE:

"New money injected into the economy has an inevitable ripple effect; early receivers of the new money spend more and bid up prices, while later receivers or those on fixed incomes find the prices of the goods they must buy unaccountably rising, while their own incomes lag behind or remain the same. Monetary inflation, in other words, not only raises prices and destroys the value of the currency unit; it also acts as a giant system of expropriation of the late receivers by the counterfeiters themselves and by the other early receivers. Monetary expansion is a massive scheme of hidden redistribution."

How can our society possibly avoid becoming so morally bankrupt when that society institutionalizes government theft of private property and blatant involuntary servitude, not just through the income tax and other forms of compulsory taxation but through the government's invasive regulatory trespasses and legal restrictions, as well as through government-usurpation of the people's right to free trade and commerce with competing currencies?
 

The Unconstitutional Constitution
 
Actually, the American Founding Fathers were themselves unwitting ministers of socialism, fascism and communism, in that the U.S. Constitution they had signed on to and ratified specifically gave the Congress and the President monopolistic powers, and restricted private citizens from entering such endeavors. For example, the Constitution gives the federal government a monopoly in territorial protection, or "defense." This is a socialist (or communist) scheme, in which the State owns the means of production in territorial protection, and the entire population are compelled by law to patronize this "service," and forbidden by the State to use any other competing protection firms. As with any other State-mandated or State-protected monopoly, there is no incentive on the part of State agents for efficiency and true fulfillment of provision of such services, and especially when the funding for such services is not through voluntary exchange but by forced wealth expropriation of the people.
 
And the defense contractors of the "military industrial complex" have benefited from the Constitution's natural consequences of military socialism and fascism, in which these supposedly privately-owned businesses' lobbyists join the government-expansionist neoconservative think tanks to "convince" high public officials to start or expand wars overseas, for the sake of these politically-connected businesses being on the receiving end of redistributed wealth confiscated from the paychecks of middle-class workers.
 
The Washington Post series on the entire government security monopoly scheme has revealed (in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4) the natural outcome of the current out-of-control expansion and inefficiency that such a compulsory, non-competitive system is destined to become. As with all State usurpations of any of life's endeavors, whether it is the provision of security, health care, banking, etc., the outcome of this constitutionally-mandated government-run operation has been counter-productive and has turned the force of the State against Americans' Liberty, as well as their prosperity and their security. We are less secure and less safe because of the federal government's centralization of security.
 
Unfortunately, many people just don't seem to realize how the socialist and fascist intrusions of official State policies are at the very core of the destruction of property rights, civil liberties and inalienable rights of all human beings. The State's ownership and control of the means of production in security have resulted in not only provoking foreigners to act against us, but have enabled the Feds via the PATRIOT Act, TSA, IRS, etc. to directly violate our Liberty. So many police powers now intimately permeate our private lives, persons, property and homes, despite whatever protections the U.S. Constitution theoretically provides.
 
But why this obsession with the Constitution , primarily by the conservatives, who claim to believe in the Founders' "original intent"? The Constitution is a document of positive law, and goes against the Founders' original intent.
 
It was the Declaration of Independence that truly recognized individual Liberty and the authority of the People over their governments, while the Constitution compromised those principles, and did nothing but ensure the empowerment of what would be an always growing centralized armed bureaucracy. But rather than having a nation of voluntary associations and contracts amongst the population, the Founders abandoned the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and instead chose centralization of power and federal enslavement of the people.
 
Unfortunately, the blind faith that so many people have in the Leviathan, despite its criminality, and the faith that people have had in the Constitution , as though it will protect them from government's abuses despite the bureaucrats' ignoring of Constitutional restraints, is beyond comprehension.
 
Despite whatever protections of private property the Constitution allegedly provides, and despite its assertion of the people's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, given over 200 years of history, the Bill of Rights might as well state that "The government may take your property at whim," and "There is no right to be secure in one's person, papers, houses and effects." Hence the recent passage in the House of the extension of the PATRIOT Act, in which everyone's property, bank accounts, homes, and emails are fair game for any parasitic intruder.
 
Americans must recognize that the Constitution's economic consequences of socialism and fascism are schemes that involve the direct violations of life, Liberty and property.
 
And culturally, Americans' permitting such immoral acts of theft and trespass by the State has turned America into a country of widespread criminality ranging from street-level crimes to the Establishment crimes committed by Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and especially the government, as well as a country of dependence and discouragement of personal responsibility.
 
The Anti-Federalists instinctively knew that State monopoly and a compulsory federal government with armed power could never be restrained once such a regime was established. Alas, instead of the free and prosperous society of voluntary exchange and individual liberty under the Rule of Law that the Jeffersonians envisioned, the Hamiltonian statists and centralists triumphed. The end of America began at its beginning.
 
Let us have a society of genuine "free market capitalism," one that protects voluntary associations and contracts, private ownership and control of wealth, property and the means of production, including a free market in competing currencies, and a society in which no one would be above the law -- not police, not soldiers, no one. In such a society would be the removal of all socialist and fascist government intrusions and restrictions, removal of confiscatory taxation, monopoly of security and policing and all other State monopolies. In other words, a society of freedom.



http://bit.ly/f0ey98