Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan: Get this, jerk: I've written and substantially completed
my New Constitution of the United States of America. No traitors to
this country get to question any portion of such. In fact, since
traitors aren't law-abiding citizens, YOU won't even get to vote! —
J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 31, 1:27 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I find it enlightening that you won't define what you think a "Patriot"
> is. I also find it disturbing that you do not deny being "an agent
> provocateur for the CIA."
>
> On 03/31/2011 10:20 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  Your seeking answers to items of common knowledge shows you
> > to be motivated to destroy, not save, the USA.  The entire tone of my
> > New Constitution�over 50% of which has been posted�is pro power to the
> > individual citizens, and con power to those biased groups that so
> > regularly bypass the democratic ideal of one-person-one-vote, fairly
> > counted.  You are spinning your wheels.  I won't be answering any
> > questions from those with a clearly negative bent.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 31, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Once again you have failed to answer even a single question posed to you.
>
> >> That you won't provide a definition for what you think a "Patriot" is
> >> says volumes. I am beginning to think your are an agent provocateur for
> >> the CIA.
>
> >> On 03/30/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  From the tone of your first reply, weeks ago, I knew you
> >>> were a negative person in talking about THE most positive for-the-
> >>> people document ever written.  There isn't a single person in the USA
> >>> with enough status as a patriot to have me explain even one sentence
> >>> of my New Constitution.  I've written such to be understandable by
> >>> ordinary Americans.  Too many important areas of "the law" were hidden
> >>> in codes of laws, out-of-sight of the man on the street needing to
> >>> know what laws say.  My New Constitution, alone, could run the country
> >>> without any other law being required to be written.  When the majority
> >>> of the man-on-the-street know my document, no policeman nor judge will
> >>> violate their rights with impunity.  Knowledge is POWER!  That's what
> >>> my New Constitution gives to the People!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> >>> Patriot
> >>> On Mar 29, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> 1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
> >>>> that word.
> >>>> 2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
> >>>> merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
> >>>> quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.
> >>>> 3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
> >>>> since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
> >>>> existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
> >>>> take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
> >>>> convoluted than your vain attempt.
> >>>> I would start with a Preamble such as this:
> >>>>       With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
> >>>>       another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
> >>>>       Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
> >>>>       herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
> >>>>       of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
> >>>>       within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
> >>>>       infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.
> >>>> I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
> >>>> because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
> >>>> remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
> >>>> population equates "bad" with "good."
> >>>> 4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."
> >>>> On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend
> >>>>> the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
> >>>>> Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution.  My bet is that
> >>>>> you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
> >>>>> my already-in-place New Constitution.  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>> On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
> >>>>>> It is both wordy and convoluted.
> >>>>>> Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
> >>>>>>        * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
> >>>>>>          interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for
> >>>>>>          influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
> >>>>>>          accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
> >>>>>> It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26  
> >>>>>> words.
> >>>>>>        * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
> >>>>>>          prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
> >>>>>>          Judicial system.
> >>>>>> In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
> >>>>>> remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
> >>>>>>        * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
> >>>>>>          Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
> >>>>>>          Years and/or deported.
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
> >>>>>> saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk
> >>>>>> or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Folks:  Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he
> >>>>>>> utters.  There are no moderators on this group.  So, he, MJ and Mark
> >>>>>>> hang-out here because my readership is high.  Those who love America
> >>>>>>> are invited to attack these socialist-communists.  I have better
> >>>>>>> things to be doing.  Thanks!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding
> >>>>>>>> the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling
> >>>>>>>> forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept
> >>>>>>>> the bull crap you have written.
> >>>>>>>> It is /highly/ unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up
> >>>>>>>> or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I
> >>>>>>>> visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New
> >>>>>>>> Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses
> >>>>>>>> necessary for its passage surely don't.
> >>>>>>>> In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New
> >>>>>>>> Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous
> >>>>>>>> provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall
> >>>>>>>> apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated
> >>>>>>>> judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule
> >>>>>>>> with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article
> >>>>>>>> III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our
> >>>>>>>> dumbed-down society.
> >>>>>>>> On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Jonathan:  The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up
> >>>>>>>>> or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution.  I don't have
> >>>>>>>>> time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the
> >>>>>>>>> psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the
> >>>>>>>>> other.  I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you.
> >>>>>>>>> "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical."  ï¿½ J. A. A.
> >>>>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>>> You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite
> >>>>>>>>>> for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New
> >>>>>>>>>> Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted?
> >>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan:  If I had wanted to have the opinions of others
> >>>>>>>>>>> influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
> >>>>>>>>>>> insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> House and the Senate.  I realized, early on, that the status quo
> >>>>>>>>>>> governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
> >>>>>>>>>>> away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> founding fathers.  Not a single person would have risked their lives
> >>>>>>>>>>> to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
> >>>>>>>>>>> make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
> >>>>>>>>>>> society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
> >>>>>>>>>>> own weight in society.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
> >>>>>>>>>>> photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>       From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
> >>>>>>>>>>> norm.  And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
> >>>>>>>>>>> media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> US economy.  My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
> >>>>>>>>>>> US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
> >>>>>>>>>>> assess the events of the day.  Once John Q. Public starts watching
> >>>>>>>>>>> news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
> >>>>>>>>>>> on the path to success and
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Jonathan: Get this, jerk: I've written and substantially completed
my New Constitution of the United States of America. No traitors to
this country get to question any portion of such. In fact, since
traitors aren't law-abiding citizens, YOU won't even get to vote! —
J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 31, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again you have failed to answer even a single question posed to you.
>
> That you won't provide a definition for what you think a "Patriot" is
> says volumes. I am beginning to think your are an agent provocateur for
> the CIA.
>
> On 03/30/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  From the tone of your first reply, weeks ago, I knew you
> > were a negative person in talking about THE most positive for-the-
> > people document ever written.  There isn't a single person in the USA
> > with enough status as a patriot to have me explain even one sentence
> > of my New Constitution.  I've written such to be understandable by
> > ordinary Americans.  Too many important areas of "the law" were hidden
> > in codes of laws, out-of-sight of the man on the street needing to
> > know what laws say.  My New Constitution, alone, could run the country
> > without any other law being required to be written.  When the majority
> > of the man-on-the-street know my document, no policeman nor judge will
> > violate their rights with impunity.  Knowledge is POWER!  That's what
> > my New Constitution gives to the People!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> > Patriot
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> 1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
> >> that word.
>
> >> 2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
> >> merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
> >> quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.
>
> >> 3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
> >> since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
> >> existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
> >> take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
> >> convoluted than your vain attempt.
>
> >> I would start with a Preamble such as this:
>
> >>      With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
> >>      another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
> >>      Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
> >>      herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
> >>      of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
> >>      within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
> >>      infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.
>
> >> I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
> >> because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
> >> remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
> >> population equates "bad" with "good."
>
> >> 4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."
>
> >> On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend
> >>> the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
> >>> Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution.  My bet is that
> >>> you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
> >>> my already-in-place New Constitution.  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>> On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
> >>>> It is both wordy and convoluted.
> >>>> Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
> >>>>       * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
> >>>>         interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for
> >>>>         influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
> >>>>         accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
> >>>> It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26  
> >>>> words.
> >>>>       * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
> >>>>         prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
> >>>>         Judicial system.
> >>>> In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
> >>>> remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
> >>>>       * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
> >>>>         Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
> >>>>         Years and/or deported.
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
> >>>> saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk
> >>>> or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Folks:  Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he
> >>>>> utters.  There are no moderators on this group.  So, he, MJ and Mark
> >>>>> hang-out here because my readership is high.  Those who love America
> >>>>> are invited to attack these socialist-communists.  I have better
> >>>>> things to be doing.  Thanks!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding
> >>>>>> the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling
> >>>>>> forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept
> >>>>>> the bull crap you have written.
> >>>>>> It is /highly/ unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up
> >>>>>> or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I
> >>>>>> visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New
> >>>>>> Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses
> >>>>>> necessary for its passage surely don't.
> >>>>>> In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New
> >>>>>> Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous
> >>>>>> provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall
> >>>>>> apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated
> >>>>>> judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule
> >>>>>> with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article
> >>>>>> III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our
> >>>>>> dumbed-down society.
> >>>>>> On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jonathan:  The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up
> >>>>>>> or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution.  I don't have
> >>>>>>> time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the
> >>>>>>> psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the
> >>>>>>> other.  I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you.
> >>>>>>> "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical."  ï¿½ J. A. A.
> >>>>>>> �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite
> >>>>>>>> for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New
> >>>>>>>> Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted?
> >>>>>>>> On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan:  If I had wanted to have the opinions of others
> >>>>>>>>> influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
> >>>>>>>>> insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
> >>>>>>>>> House and the Senate.  I realized, early on, that the status quo
> >>>>>>>>> governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
> >>>>>>>>> away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
> >>>>>>>>> founding fathers.  Not a single person would have risked their lives
> >>>>>>>>> to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
> >>>>>>>>> make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
> >>>>>>>>> society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
> >>>>>>>>> own weight in society.
> >>>>>>>>> It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
> >>>>>>>>> photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
> >>>>>>>>>      From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
> >>>>>>>>> norm.  And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
> >>>>>>>>> media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
> >>>>>>>>> US economy.  My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
> >>>>>>>>> US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
> >>>>>>>>> assess the events of the day.  Once John Q. Public starts watching
> >>>>>>>>> news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
> >>>>>>>>> on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of
> >>>>>>>>> hardworking Americans!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>>> I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor
> >>>>>>>>>> appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought,
> >>>>>>>>>> considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the
> >>>>>>>>>> opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New
> >>>>>>>>>> Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to
> >>>>>>>>>> create a one-man nation.
> >>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan:  Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts',
> >>>>>>>>>>> you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas.  I don't
> >>>>>>>>>>> have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things
> >>>>>>>>>>> that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back
> >>>>>>>>>>> into my thread.  Please quit
>
> ...
>
> 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.

I can't be put on the defensive regarding the most highly-motivated,
for-the-people document ever written. Jonathan, the socialist-
communist, is bent on destroying the USA. He has no virtues worthy of
his being allowed to continue to live on this Earth. He is an outlaw
to humanity, along with Mark and MJ. I'm amazed that Keith can't see
what rascals he purports to understand and tolerate! — J. A.
Armistead — Patriot
>
On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> The problem is you don't defend your document. If you were to defend it,
> you would have to engage in dialogue. Instead, you resort to personal
> attacks against those who pose questions - failing in every instance
> thus far to answer any posed questions. You are nothing more than a
> hypocrite.
>
> On 03/29/2011 09:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  You, like so many in the groups, seek to elevate your non-
> > existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual and
> > creative superiors.  As required by the original Constitution, I
> > only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the attacks
> > of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark.  My time would be better spent
> > writing more essays.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR New
> >> Constitution being criticized.
>
> >> On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  For your information, no socialist-communist will ever get
> >>> a chance to serve in, or be employed by government.  The "input" that
> >>> you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like you.  ï¿½ J.
> >>> A. A. �
> >>> On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling rather than
> >>>> engage in meaningful dialog.
> >>>> On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.
> >>>>> � J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In the case of
> >>>>>> contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the
> >>>>>> contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary interaction. That
> >>>>>> is how things should be.
> >>>>>> However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have been treated
> >>>>>> unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and
> >>>>>> let the jury decide." Would not a better (and less expensive) solution
> >>>>>> be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm that has no
> >>>>>> vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would need, as
> >>>>>> you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the God-damned
> >>>>>> government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when "treated
> >>>>>> unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the
> >>>>>> government that has treated us unfairly.
> >>>>>> How can government be the problem and the solution at the same time?
> >>>>>> Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not work. How
> >>>>>> does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on the
> >>>>>> bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the collection
> >>>>>> of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm would have
> >>>>>> no vested interest either way.
> >>>>>> Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury decide" is
> >>>>>> the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of "democracy."
> >>>>>> Will the population collectively sit on every jury?
> >>>>>>        *DEMOCRACY*, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government
> >>>>>>        by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is
> >>>>>>        lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the
> >>>>>>        people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government
> >>>>>>        of Athens.
> >>>>>> On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jonathan:  You are a hopeless case.  No one is needed to explain the
> >>>>>>> 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> >>>>>>> And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair.  In the case
> >>>>>>> of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the
> >>>>>>> contract are happy with the deal.  If a person thinks they have been
> >>>>>>> treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil
> >>>>>>> court and let the jury decide.  Those with a conscience (but not you)
> >>>>>>> know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others.  No one needs
> >>>>>>> to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say!
> >>>>>>> Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum.  You don't have the
> >>>>>>> reasoning ability of a (blind) mole.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"
> >>>>>>>> Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule?
> >>>>>>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch."
> >>>>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan:  If you had spent 14 years of your life writing a New
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution for the benefit of most Americans, you'd realize that
> >>>>>>>>> "ego" just wouldn't be a suitable enough motive.  Apparently, I pegged
> >>>>>>>>> you right that you are simply jealous that I have already accomplished
> >>>>>>>>> things you've only talked about.  Conservatives such as Glenn Beck and
> >>>>>>>>> Rush Limbaugh like to talk about this country's problems, but can't be
> >>>>>>>>> taken seriously that they actually want those problems to be solved.
> >>>>>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano has close to the right assessments of the
> >>>>>>>>> unconstitutionality of much that the WH is doing.  But he always grins
> >>>>>>>>> and stops short of calling for the immediate arrest of Barack Obama
> >>>>>>>>> for TREASON.  My New Constitution will hang any public official not
> >>>>>>>>> upholding this simple sworn statement: "Fair play and democracy shall
> >>>>>>>>> have supremacy in the USA!"  Since socialism and communism are the
> >>>>>>>>> anti-theses of fair play and of democracy, I highly recommend that no
> >>>>>>>>> socialist-communist-minded air-heads ever seek public office.  If they
> >>>>>>>>> do, there could become a shortage of hangman's nooses!  ï¿½ John A.
> >>>>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the
> >>>>>>>>>> positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to
> >>>>>>>>>> accomplish what I have."
> >>>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Mark:  Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from
> >>>>>>>>>>> one day to the next?  If indeed you can read and comprehend, you
> >>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't need to put those words in capitals.  Unlike you and MJ, I
> >>>>>>>>>>> don't depend on YELLING to make my points.  If you find what I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>> writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are
> >>>>>>>>>>> either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and
> >>>>>>>>>>> thus opposed.  The "tone" of my document is pro control of government
> >>>>>>>>>>> by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use
> >>>>>>>>>>> of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the
> >>>>>>>>>>> rights of others.  I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because
> >>>>>>>>>>> you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I
> >>>>>>>>>>> have.  If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts.  No
> >>>>>>>>>>> socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> >>>>>>>>>>> Patriot
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>            wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what he says.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<micha...@america.net>            wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy.  My New
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hang those in government who support socialism and communism.  When you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost, Jonathan!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting first rate care.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>        The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> his EMBRACE of socialism.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is ALSO this from the same person:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing
>
> ...
>
> 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: Why in the world would the NYT print this story - why not just point a finger at the CIA agents and tell the Libyans there they are

Not any more. Question is should it have been in the first place. Next
question is who leaked it to the NYT and why and who told them to, who
is behind the leak at the ultimate end. I just find it strange that the
NYT feels entitled to release anything like this with what was said
about it to begin with. If it was secret, if it was clandestine, if it
was authorized for the CIA to act, then it should not be up to the NYT
to decide to print the info.

On 04/01/2011 11:20 AM, GregfromBoston wrote:
> Note that the president has issued a secret finding - authorize the
> CIA - clandestine effort. What part of that tells us that the
> president
> wants this broadcast to the world. Note the word secret, CIA,
> clandestine. Which of those words do you not understand.
> -------------------------------------
>
> If you're reading about it in the New York Times, its neither
> clandestine nor secret.
>

--
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.

Fwd: March Straw Poll Results are in!

Palin Wins March Straw Poll; Paul in 2nd Percentages tightening up   Congratulations to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who won the March Townhall/HotAir Straw Poll with 16.91% of the vote! For the second straight month Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in right behind her, this time amassing 16.02%. The results are starting to get really close in comparison to the previous months. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann was the mover and shaker this month, gaining 1.47 percentage points. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie saw the biggest decrease in support, losing 1.42 percentage points. The second biggest decrease come from the winner Sarah Palin at 1.23 percentage points. Is this an indication that next month see a new candidate in the top spot? We will see! Thank you for voting in the March Republican Straw Poll! If you haven't already, please join our Facebook Page to get all the latest news on the Townhall/HotAir Straw Poll and the 2012 elections. Click the Facebook image and become a fan today! The Townhall.com Presidential Straw Poll We printed the February results in the latest issue of Townhall Magazine. Make sure to subscribe to get all the conservative content that is exclusive to the print edition and cannot be found anywhere on the web. If you want to stay up to date on the 2012 presidential election then you need Townhall Magazine! With your subscription you get a free book from a conservative author. Subscribe or renew to Townhall Magazine and get your choice of a FREE book!

Townhall Magazine is the monthly news and opinion journal from the same team of right-thinking reporters, opinions makers, insiders and political leaders conservatives have trusted for 15 years. It's the place to find interviews with and profiles and writings of some of your favorite conservatives, including Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, Andrew Breitbart, Newt Gingrich, Walter Williams, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Wayne LaPierre, Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey, Mike Pence, Bill Bennett, Fred Thompson, and many more. Townhall Magazine is exclusively in print. Townhall Magazine's coverage features investigative journalism, in-depth reporting, heavily researched analysis, interviews with the heavy hitters and powerful exposes--all exclusive to the magazine. No other magazine offers you this brilliant combination of smart, conservative, in-depth reporting and opinion that truly reflects your values. Townhall Magazine is taking "conservative magazines" to new heights with its investigative reporting and stories, conservative humor, photography, culture, and commentary from your favorites. Fresh. Intelligent. Conservative.

__________________________SUBSCRIPTION INFO__________________________ This email was sent to you because you signed up to receive conservative alerts on the Townhall.com network OR a friend forwarded it to you. We respect and value your time and privacy. If you no longer would like to receive information about Townhall Magazine we will be happy to remove your address immediately. You can unsubscribe by clicking here. Or Send postal mail to: Townhall Unsubscribe 1901 N. Moore St - Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22209 WERE YOU FORWARDED THIS NEWSLETTER? You can get your own free subscription to this newsletter by clicking here. NOT A CURRENT TOWNHALL MAGAZINE SUBSCRIBER? Get Townhall Magazine today by clicking here! * Copyright Townhall and its Content Providers. All rights reserved.

--
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.

Talk, alone, can't save the US economy and social order.

This week Glenn Beck compared Judaism and Islam. He's right that Jews
are less harsh in dealing with 'prohibited' activities than Muslims.
But, apparently, Beck hasn't considered the "hidden dangers" posed by
the Jews in Israel that hurt the chances the world can avoid humanity-
threatening conflicts. To wit: Following WWII, and the admittedly
terrible Holocaust, Jews were a race without a nation. Over the ages
Jews had had legitimate claim to much of the Holy Land. But that land
had since ceded to those of the Muslim faith. By force of armed
conflict, Jews confiscated the land of Muslims without fair
compensation. Though they had the 'nation' they so desired, it was a
nation obtained by immoral acts, including murder, covetousness and
grand theft. In "celebration" of the new nation of Israel, the USA
formed an alliance to protect Israel from armed aggression. Isn't it
ironic that our country had not considered it… "worthy" to come to the
aid of those Muslims driven from the Holy Land?

Because the US regularly sides with Jewish crooks and uses our
military might to neutralize those who are only seeking justice, the
USA has become a despised nation. Our capitalist successes have made
us look like crooks in those realms, too. Thousands of Americans have
died and are dying in the wars being fought. And perhaps millions of
Americans, and that many more of our allies, are now living in fear of
terrorism… Such would NOT be the case if Jews hadn't felt "entitled"
to be crooks because of the Holocaust. True to form, Jews take every
opportunity for selfish gain, without considering the morality of
their actions.

Muslims deserve to be treated fairly. Understandably, the nation of
Israel is an affront to the moral sensibilities of Muslims. My book,
"The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity", touts how FAIR
capitalist successes—evenly spread throughout all the peoples of the
world—can foster world peace, harmony and prosperity. Such successes
can be more profound than ever experienced by the vast majority of
Muslims. *** As I see it, Israel has a moral obligation to help
foster capitalist successes within Muslim nations. Unless they
willingly do so, the world will remain just hours away from a world
war more terrible than anyone can imagine, and more terrible than any
of the 'punishments' Muslims use on those breaking their rules—beyond
which Glenn Beck, apparently, has not seen.

Instead of the trillions of dollars being spent to defend Israel and
to fight their wars for them, that money should be spent to equitably
turn Israel into a model two-race nation. That's just a concept, mind
you. I can envision an Architectural Master Plan that layers and
weaves quality working and living spaces on the limited land
available. Holy places common to both religions should become neutral
territory, with wise controlled-access being allowed for all who
respect the sanctity of the spaces. Where there are now rock piles,
there should become gardens! The goal should be to once again make
Israel a safe destination for those interested in religious history.
The Jewish Temple, at least partially, should be reconstructed, NOT as
an affront to those of other faiths, but as a tribute to the
technological achievements of those from other ages. Muslim places of
high importance should be developed for high purposes, too.

Progress toward peace and prosperity can happen rapidly, IF Muslims
will start correcting their very bad public relations—like yesterday.
When the Koran was written, the world was composed largely of warring
barbarians. Religious ritual was a way to separate friend from foe.
The more loyal a follower, the more committed that person was to the
rituals of his faith. Intended or not, that "empty ritual", which I
abhor, has brainwashed Muslims till they are… the most mass-minded
people on Earth. Muslims have little or no individual moral
sensibility to question the harsh punishments of 'sinners'. Their
only standard is a largely barbaric religious code that has never been
brought into the civilized age.

Glenn Beck talks about the billions of 'bad' Muslims. Where are
others, such as me, to propose that there be concerted efforts to make
this world economically and socially FAIR within every nation? I'm
betting that terrorism and wars won't even be considered, once Muslims
start sharing in the simple capitalist successes that countries like
the USA and Israel have for too long kept the knack-for-obtaining
secret from others. We live on one, common, planet Earth, people!
Teaching capitalism for the benefit of the uninitiated, will
eventually benefit every one of us in the long run. That is my hope
and dream!

Respectfully submitted,

— John A. Armistead — Patriot

AKA NoEinstein on sci.physics news group.
>
On Mar 13, 11:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks:  As closely as possible, following the outline of our original
> Constitution, is the attached Article from my New Constitution.:
>
> "Article V:
>
> Section 1, 2 & 3:  Whenever 50% of the House deems necessary, the
> House may propose amendments to the New Constitution, or call a
> convention for proposing amendments; such may be ratified in a one
> day, direct referendum of the People of all the states and
> territories, provided 60% of the registered voters who vote concur.
>      The New Constitution and laws and treaties made under the
> authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land,
> and judges in every state shall be bound thereby.  Nothing in a state
> constitution can be to the contrary.  Before taking a public office or
> job, representatives, members of the legislatures, all executive and
> judicial officers—of the United States and of the several states and
> local governments—and all employees of those who regularly deal with
> the Public, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to have read the
> entire New Constitution within the last 30 days and to support such.
> No religious oath or action shall be used as part of the qualification
> for any office, public trust or job.
>      To form more perfect government, the House may authorize tests of
> variations of government or laws that are, in the main, consistent
> with the intents of this New Constitution.  With the assent of 55% of
> the legislature or legislatures of the state(s) involved, such tests
> may encompass one or several states for a period of time sufficient to
> evaluate performance.  Subsequently, the House may vote to pass laws
> of national scope on the issues tested.  Conflicts arising from the
> test(s) shall be resolved in the courts using this New Constitution
> and apt federal laws, but with no intent at any time to punish those
> persons, groups or states for their involvement in the test, done for
> the common good."
>
> — John A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> Those who are interested are invited to read my just-published book,
> "The Shortest Distance, Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B. &
> N.).  Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 10:22 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks:  Some shallow, at Google or otherwise, changed the title of
> > this post to "… Empty Rhetoric" rather than "… Empty Ritual".  I was
> > unable to reply and to have the latter, correct name of my original
> > post be included.  That's important so all excerpts from my New
> > Constitution can be found under one heading.
>
> > Note:  The reason I used "… Empty Ritual" relates as much to religions
> > and social habits as it does to our government—which is more
> > interested in form and process than in getting results that will be
> > beneficial to the vast majority (60% plus) of Americans.
>
> > I am cutting, pasting and re posting the last two replies I made to
> > Keith in Koln.
>
> > Dear Keith in Koln:  I lived in Charlotte for over two decades.  My
> > father, in his childhood, lived in Tarpon Springs.  One of my most
> > frightening times was driving over the Tampa Bay bridge.  The
> > "starting point" for me in rewriting the constitution was to correct
> > the rampant injustices in our courts, and to allay our (You have to
> > experience it to know it.) police state.  As happened with O. J., the
> > police target who they want to convict whether they are guilty or
> > not.  The police are especially unfair to Blacks.  I make it a felony
> > for any prosecutor to be overly zealous to convict someone who is
> > latter proved to be innocent.  At every turn, justice demands that the
> > presumption of innocence be there throughout the trial until the jury
> > has reached a unanimous decision for guilt.  Never again will there be
> > the converse requirement for a unanimous decision of innocence...  ***
> > Only one of twelve jury members is required to find someone not
> > guilty.  The latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended!
>
> > I'm flattered that someone with a Law background, like you, has said
> > anything favorable about my essays or my daily battles with others.
> > Here is the entire Article III relating to the Justice System:
>
> > "Article III:
>
> > Section 1:  The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and
> > such inferior courts as the House establishes.  Its major duty is to
> > interpret laws.  It has no power to command enforcement of any of its
> > rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt
> > laws.  Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New
> > Constitution.  They shall perform their duties as individuals, never
> > as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor
> > from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of
> > such.  Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal
> > executive or legislative office.  The President shall nominate new
> > justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on
> > good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years.  The President,
> > or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any
> > nominee.   Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect,
> > high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable
> > nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office.  Such
> > shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments,
> > yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly.  They shall
> > make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution—never on
> > their personal ideologies.  Every two years an unbiased review panel
> > shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
> > seated judges and justices.  With the assent of 60% of the voters
> > nationwide, the latter can be unseated.  Judges and justices aren't
> > royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently
> > superior to public macro-consensus.   They shall not be chambered
> > lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress
> > in a style that differentiates them from the People.  They shall not
> > socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the
> > Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall they attend
> > State of the Union Addresses or similar events.  The Public shall not
> > stand for entering or exiting judges or justices who shall be
> > addressed only as: judge or justice.  Judges and justices not
> > respecting such provisions, or who exhibit excessive arrogance or
> > pomposity on the job shall be removed.  Sessions of all trials shall
> > begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: "The justice system is
> > on trial."  All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for
> > one year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall
> > not—on their own—reconsider such issue.  Courtrooms shall be devoid of
> > gavels, seals, flags and oppressive art, and no design feature nor
> > process shall imply that judges or justices represent government or
> > respond patly or collectively.  It is TREASON for a judge or justice
> > to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy.
>
> > Section 2 & 3:  Judges and justices shall be answerable to the
> > People.  On issues of internal criminality, misconduct or corruption
> > within any arm of government—including the entire judicial system—
> > judges and justices shall not, during a trial or during sentencing,
> > favor government officials, judges, justices, nor any arm(s) of law
> > enforcement, and shall hold government officials, fellow judges,
> > justices, or members of law enforcement as accountable for wrongful
> > acts as those outside of government.  If a judge or justice fails to
> > respond to a rightful petition or complaint against any government
> > official or member of the justice system, such judge or justice may be
> > guilty of a felony.  The determination of the above status shall be
> > made following a mandatory vote in the House.  Upon a yea vote of 1/3
> > of the House, a national public trial, televised from the House, shall
> > be held regarding all named parties—with judgment being determined via
> > referendum.  Whenever 60% of the registered voters who vote determine
> > that there is guilt, the government officials, judges, justices and/or
> > members of law enforcement shall be removed from their former
> > positions and sentenced commensurate with their crimes, up to and
> > including the death penalty.
> >      Judicial authority shall extend to all cases in law and equity
> > arising under this New Constitution, the laws of the United States,
> > treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, to all
> > cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to
> > all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies in
> > which the United States is a party, to controversies between two or
> > more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between
> > Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state
> > claiming lands under grants of different states or the Citizens
> > thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects.  The Supreme Court
> > shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors
> > and consuls, and those in which a state is a party.  In all other
> > cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate juris-diction both as to
> > law and to fact—with such exceptions and under such regulations as the
> > House shall make.  Except in cases of impeachment, the trial of all
> > crimes shall be by jury in the state where said crimes were allegedly
> > committed, or if otherwise, where the House directs.  Misdemeanors and
> > crimes occurring conjunctively shall be tried with the more serious
> > crime, unless the disproving of the misdemeanor would excuse the
> > crime.   If either occurred in multiple jurisdictions, the trial shall
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Rango: A Libertarian Spiritual Epic

"Rango presents an extraordinarily dim view of the state and draws a consistent connection between its destruction of the economy and its corruption of the human spirit. The mayor does not simply impoverish the people of Dirt -- he degrades their souls. When the townsfolk line up to collect the trickle of water that still flows into Dirt, they become entranced and dance before him as if it were a religious ceremony. The mayor does not simply wish to grab all the land, but to destroy the town's entire culture. The independent, self-reliant ways of the townsfolk he considers a thing of the past, so before turning them out of Dirt altogether, he does his best to make them docile, tame, and dependent upon him."

Rango: A Libertarian Spiritual Epic
Friday, April 01, 2011
by Daniel Krawisz

I saw Rango to enjoy the combined hijinks of Johnny Depp and other cartoon animals, and in this I was not disappointed; however, it was not at all the most memorable aspect of the experience. Rango led me to entirely unexpected places. It is not simply a cartoon about a lizard but a journey into the soul, and it depicts the trials of individuation haunted by the constant specter of death. Interleaved with this basic theme are strong libertarian overtones of the relationship of the individual to society and establishing a connection between redemption and the search for wealth.

Rango is intensely metaphorical. It is full of allusions to other films and stories. From the start, the stream of allusions takes one into an associative state of mind, a state receptive to symbols. Rango takes place in an Old West–themed world with animal characters, but to me these all feel like a facade -- the movie is a dream, and real action takes place in the mind of the unseen dreamer. The plot follows the progress of life through gestation, birth, infancy, childhood, and adulthood, depicting the gradual creation of the self along the way.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. Of all my visits to the movie theater, I can remember none quite like this. Before proceeding, I urge the reader to see the movie himself ­ this review contains spoilers.


Up from Oblivion

The film begins with the eternal, dreamlike, precocious babble of a growing, unformed mind, arising from sleep into dream, or from oblivion into existence. This babble is revealed to be a chameleon's warm-up exercise before a dramatic performance. The chameleon is in a strange world ­ sterile, enclosed, artificial, solitary. His only company is some broken plastic toys, which he directs as if they were actors.

At first he seems happy and entirely unaware of the limitations of his existence, but in a flash of realization, he concludes that his character is ill-defined, thus projecting his own inadequacies onto the character he is playing. He suggests that his character must find conflict in order to grow, and thus unknowingly prognosticates his own future: for, a moment later, the car in which his terrarium is traveling hits a bump, propelling the unhappy chameleon away onto a busy road in the middle of the desert.

After this painful birth, the chameleon is immediately and unrelentingly accosted by images of death. This begins with a flattened armadillo, the source of the bump from earlier, who, before becoming roadkill, tells the chameleon of his many attempts to cross the road into the west. Yet a moment later the armadillo appears inexplicably unharmed. He cannot explain why he wants to cross, but says the chameleon will understand someday. "It's a metaphor," he says. From this we see that the armadillo is really a spirit trying to cross over into the next world.

Death hounds our hero from this point on in various guises: an attack by a hawk, a lizard who suffers from petit mal seizures, a creepy spider undertaker, invocations of zombies and Valkyries. Death peeks in again and again, creeping its way into the movie until becoming fully embodied later -- but I will say no more about that character and let you see for yourself!

Eventually the chameleon reaches a town called Dirt. Still unsure of who he is, he imitates everyone he sees around him, like a toddler getting his first feel for life. At first the townsfolk take very little notice of him, but when they ask him who he is, he hesitates to answer. He realizes he could be anybody, and invents an identity -- Rango, the gunslinger from the west. Significantly, Rango claims to be from the west. Because this direction has already been identified with heaven, Rango is in essence claiming to be a heavenly visitor. The ruse works and all are impressed with him.


Economic Woes

Rango's arrival in Dirt almost immediately precedes an economic panic. The bank is almost empty, having been unable to collect on its loans, and once rumors get out about it, the townsfolk flock to the bank to get all they can. A wonderful thing about the world of Rango is that they actually use water for money! The bank vault is really an office water cooler -- this is real commodity money!

The banker is not depicted as being in league with government -- statism has apparently not reached this stage yet -- but the mayor is poised to take advantage of the crisis. He senses that Rango is a poseur and wishes to make use of his effective showmanship. He therefore appoints Rango as the sheriff and tells him to give the people something to look up to. "People need hope," the mayor says. He adds a new piece to Rango's identity -- that of a redeemer. In his employ, Rango is to keep people placated, keep them loyal to the mayor, to play along and not ask questions.

As the plot progresses, Rango comes to realize that Dirt is not running out of water, but that the mayor has been surreptitiously controlling its supply. The mayor has produced an artificial drought, his ultimate plan being to obtain all the land when its tenants are driven off and then let the water flow again once he has it all. He wishes to control all the water, which we know is the same as money, and Rango is the deception he uses to maintain legitimacy.

Rango presents an extraordinarily dim view of the state and draws a consistent connection between its destruction of the economy and its corruption of the human spirit. The mayor does not simply impoverish the people of Dirt -- he degrades their souls. When the townsfolk line up to collect the trickle of water that still flows into Dirt, they become entranced and dance before him as if it were a religious ceremony. The mayor does not simply wish to grab all the land, but to destroy the town's entire culture. The independent, self-reliant ways of the townsfolk he considers a thing of the past, so before turning them out of Dirt altogether, he does his best to make them docile, tame, and dependent upon him.

To bring the connection one step further, what does Rango discover in his darkest moment, all alone, run out of town, after crossing the road in a trance? The city of Las Vegas. Who but a libertarian would make a connection between heaven and crass, hedonistic, spectacular Las Vegas? Across the road and beyond some hills, Rango faces irrigated golf courses, shining skyscrapers, dazzling lights ­ and the secret valve the mayor used to cut off Dirt's water supply.

In cutting off Dirt from the supply of water, he cuts it off from its connection to Las Vegas. The water, which is only some meager runoff from Las Vegas, is the source of life and the foundation of economic activity in Dirt.


Conclusion

Rango draws a connection between individuation, the process of finding oneself, and the search for spiritual enlightenment with the search for earthly wealth. Rango is a self-made man in every sense. In the end, it is not Rango's capacity as sheriff that restores the town, but rather his ingenuity in finding wealth, in the form of the precious water that Dirt lacks. Early in the movie he is a false redeemer, a puppet of the mayor to help lure the townsfolk into his trap, but the chameleon's dedication to his character, to his own self-made identity, enables him to become a true redeemer. He does not stop searching for the truth -- the real Rango would never give up. He refuses to stay loyal to the corrupt mayor but strikes out on his own, finally restoring the town through entrepreneurial action.

The chameleon from the start of the movie becomes Rango the hero and leaves his old nonidentity behind, and, once this process is complete, the false redeemer becomes a true one.

Once the water, a runoff from heaven, is restored, the people's misery and stuggles are redeemed. The town can prosper once more.

The ending of Rango is poignant. Although the town has been restored, death is not defeated but placated. There are still reminders of death at the very end of the movie. This serves to remind the viewer that although Rango survived long enough to discover his identity, many don't make it, and that the quest of self-creation is urgent and perilous.



Daniel Krawisz is a physics student at the University of Texas at Austin. He blogs at libertarian longhorns.com.

http://mises.org/daily/5134/Rango-A-Libertarian-Spiritual-Epic

"The Tea Party vs. John Boehner"

(I am in the last two seconds in the audience for what that's worth)

	help center | e-mail options | report spam
BruceMajors has shared a video with you on YouTube: The Tea Party vs. John Boehner The Tea Party held a rally outside the Capitol Building today to demand that congressional Republicans demand significant cuts in federal spending. The outlook is bad. House Republicans are fighting to hold on to the $61 billion in spending cuts they approved in February, a mere rounding error in a budget totaling about $3.8 trillion. Today's rally shows how the Tea Party has continued the fight to make itself heard in Washington. But in Ohio there's a new focus: local politics. "I have no expectation of anything coming out of congress that's going to be very close to what I'd like to see happen," says Chris Littleton, president of both the Cincinnati Tea Party and the Ohio Liberty Council, which is an umbrella group of 65 Tea Party and other activist groups in the buckeye state. "But we can have a greater degree of effect at the state level." The Ohio Liberty Council is appointing a designated representative in every ... more
© 2011 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

--
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: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

Keith,

Nice of you to point out the reasons Assange did NOTHING wrong....ie:

"It is in violation of our laws to retain,........"

".....the United States is sovereign, in and of itself." 

As are ALL other nations where US law is NOT their law.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Greg, Mark MJ & Jonathan!

 

Without going in and researching this, I don't think that there is any question that the United States, as a corporation (e.g; a corporate body, or corporate politic) does in fact exist. As a Nation-State; and as Mark pointed out yesterday, the United States is sovereign, in and of itself.

 

Assange has arrogantly admitted to disseminating classified information through his entity, "Wiki-Leaks". Bradley Manning, According to his online chats, stated that he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, Manning betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

 

It is in violation of our laws to retain, disseminate, or disclose classified information of the United States. Assange and his attorneys were warned of this before Assange chose to violate 18 U.S.C. § 793 et.seq. (See §§ 793, 794 and 798 in particular). Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!"

 

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

 

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled "Lady Gaga." Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song "Telephone" while frantically downloading classified documents.

 

Where is Lil'TommyTomTomForNews? Surely he can remind us once again why it was so important to shit-can "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:

 

Keith,

 

I am making this challenge precisely because you are a lawyer. Can you factually prove that the United States of America actually exists?

 

You cannot hear it, see it, smell it, touch it, or taste it. Its alleged boundaries are not visible from any un-doctored image from space I have ever seen.

 

Sure the statists who pretend they represent the interests of the United States of America (members of Congress, the President, and the far too many bozos appointed to government positions by the bozo-in-chief) can be heard incessantly, seen far too often, smelled (if you should venture too close to them), touched (not sure why anyone would desire to do so), and (for those with no discernment and who are so inclined) tasted. The United States of America fails every sensory test.

 

So how can you prove anything "belonged to the United States"?

 

Even if one were to assume anything published by Wikileaks originally belonged to the United States government, you - being a lawyer - should know that U.S. federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105). So, how can anyone be found guilty of publishing that which upon its creation is in the public domain?

 

"Might Makes Right":

"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

 

 

On 03/31/2011 10:08 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:

Hey Mark!

 

Assange had no right to disseminate ANYTHING that belonged to the United States,  (e.g.; you and I)  and I don't give a crap where he was propped up at. 

 

In this case, "MIght Makes Right"; and Assange was warned a number of times NOT to publish information that didn't belong to him, but rather, belonged to us.

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Keith,

 

As to Assange.... Just what right does the USA have to tell a foreign

national that is not within its territorial boundaries

ANYTHING ?? Have you never given thought to the word "Sovereign"? It

has actual physical boundary limitations that curtail its rights as a

nation.

 

Assange was neither in the boundaries nor subject to ANY US law. He

was free to act so long as he broke no law where he was at the time or

in his home country.

 

As to his extradition trial... the facts of the act, in order to

extraditable, must be illegal in BOTH countries, the one he is in and

the one trying to get him back. Screwing without a condom is NOT

illegal anywhere that I know of outside of Sweden.

 

 

On Mar 31, 8:05 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I heard,

> he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first of

> May, 2011.

>

> Have you heard something to the contrary?

>

> With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial, extradition,

> and facing his accusers, not the other way around.

>

> Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that

> revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,, and

> probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles, (over

> the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was

> purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months or

> years previously.

>

> That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos

> chose to publish and make public.....In Assange's case, long after he was

> told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive

> nature and being classified.

>

> If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are

> referencing, then he should hang.

>

 

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and apparently

> > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the Constitution, we

> > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom

>

> > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a

> > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how to

> > arrest or censor him.

>

> > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or

> > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom fighters

> > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that be

> > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around naked,

> > and smearing their reputations.

>

> > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is no

> > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out in

> > front of him.

>

> > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people given

> > access to alleged secrets?

>

> > --

> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

 

> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

>

> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/

 

> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

 

--

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.

 

--

 

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.

Search Millions of MLS Listings, Find Local Agents & Expert Advice

http://click.lavabit.com/zfb4jsf3ddwyfxiboqnn7izxcre4hazmshph75tqzgjxnw6wepfb/

 

--

 

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

--

 

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.

 

--

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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.