Friday, April 22, 2011

Re: **JP** Dots on the Wall

it was like some optical illusion art seen at fairs.   it would interest some skilled at fundraising for animal rights groups.  it is easy now to insure traded farm stock when in transport and care staff. but not so easy to insure free range stock and rangers.
some people should make some more films about what happens to free range animals when flood season happens.  and a  society for the well being of farm animals should survey  stock-yard animal behaviours  flood season.  they should continue to be tagged based on how they react to natural elements wind rain etc.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Maria Shaban <maria_gail4u@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

 

 

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




--
yorkton environment directorate

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

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

J. Ashley: If I say so, then it is so! — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 21, 9:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> So, let's assume the vast majority of People want "that candidate" to
> represent them. Do you think one oposing individual (let's say you) is
> going to have any luck enforcing your rediculous scheme?
>
> > J. A.:  A single law-abiding citizen who witnesses a candidate using
> > "labels", who can record that candidate making the remark, can kick
> > the candidate out of the race!  There are no Czars required to police
> > these things.  The national media documents those who violate my New
> > Constitution.  Like The Donald likes to do, just say: "You're fired!"
> > and that candidate will be out of the race!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �
> > On Apr 21, 11:57 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> 1) Who decides if a "public official" has "tagged" another individual
> >> "as being left or right"?
>
> >> 2) If you could come up with some convoluted scheme for determining such
> >> violations, how do you propose to enforce this?
>
> >> On 04/20/2011 08:33 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  My New Constitution makes it a crime for any public
> >>> official to "tag" anyone as being left or right.  The USA will survive
> >>> ONLY if all group-against-group fighting stops!  Capitalism will
> >>> benefit all the people, not just the had-been conservatives.  Less
> >>> expensive government leaves more money in people's pockets.  And that
> >>> will encourage more charity close to home.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> >>> On Apr 20, 12:43 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rush Limbaugh is at best a neo-conservative who spouts off when "the
> >>>> left" does something insane but keeps his mouth shut when "the right"
> >>>> does the same insane thing. He does nothing more than perpetuate a
> >>>> left-right war of the mindless for profit.
> >>>> Anyone who blindly sides with "the left" or "the right" is someone who
> >>>> does not think for themselves.
> >>>> On 04/20/2011 01:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Mark:  Your being in Gaza... does that mean you are Jewish?  Rush
> >>>>> Limbaugh is the number one conservative radio talk-show host in
> >>>>> America.  He isn't screwing-up anything, because he doesn't have the
> >>>>> balls to actually lead the revolution that's needed to take back this
> >>>>> country from the socialist-communists.  If you aren't an American,
> >>>>> then I can't see why you care about what I do to save this country.
> >>>>> Your oblique protections of Barack Obama show you to be pro left.  If
> >>>>> I'm wrong, then say anything to suggest that you are pro right.
> >>>>> Mostly you are con anything that has a chance to succeed.  ï¿½  John A.
> >>>>> Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>> On Apr 18, 11:49 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> Having been IN Gaza just a couple of months ago on assignment I would
> >>>>>> say that I have a much better grasp of what is happening in the real
> >>>>>> world. Who is Rush Limbaugh and why would I take a Gringos word for
> >>>>>> anything ?? They have a really bad habit of screwing up everything to
> >>>>>> meet their own idea of what and who people should be.
> >>>>>> As far as doing any walking.... you have NO clue. Again I ask... What
> >>>>>> has Gaddafi done that is a clear and present danger to the US in the
> >>>>>> last ten years ??
> >>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:37 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Mark:  Instead of straddling so many fences, why don't you watch
> >>>>>>> the news and think about what is going on in the world.  I simply
> >>>>>>> don't have the time to walk you through the relevancy of the turmoil
> >>>>>>> that's everywhere.  Listen to Rush Limbaugh.  He has the world
> >>>>>>> situation pegged fairly well.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:55 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Einstein,
> >>>>>>>> Gee what part of "I am not subject to the US Constitution" says that I
> >>>>>>>> give a rats ass about the Black in your White House !?!?! (To the Libs
> >>>>>>>> there.. do not Bitch if it is true)
> >>>>>>>> Do I not have to be a citizen or legal resident to be charged or even
> >>>>>>>> considered for a charge of treason regardless of my actions !?!?
> >>>>>>>> Gaddafi has done NOTHING to me or my country... why should I care
> >>>>>>>> about YOUR problem with him ?? By the way... what has he done
> >>>>>>>> (actually DONE) to your country in the last ten years that makes him a
> >>>>>>>> clear and present danger??
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 10:05 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational
> >>>>>>>>> Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.  Google
> >>>>>>>>> World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are very
> >>>>>>>>> naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the
> >>>>>>>>> noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> >>>>>>>>> TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on moderation
> >>>>>>>>> someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed?
> >>>>>>>>> Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill
> >>>>>>>>> their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> >>>>>>>>> committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> >>>>>>>>> resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has caused
> >>>>>>>>> more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who
> >>>>>>>>> ever lived, including Hitler.
> >>>>>>>>> Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government and
> >>>>>>>>> in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested,
> >>>>>>>>> tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for
> >>>>>>>>> giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you,
> >>>>>>>>> Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's viewed
> >>>>>>>>> you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you are so
> >>>>>>>>> screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> >>>>>>>>> better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some couch-
> >>>>>>>>> time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein,
> >>>>>>>>>> Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or
> >>>>>>>>>> your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard
> >>>>>>>>>> message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> >>>>>>>>>> originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law.
> >>>>>>>>>> Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in
> >>>>>>>>>>> those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews
> >>>>>>>>>>> are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such
> >>>>>>>>>>> nice people.  Israel should become a training place for successful
> >>>>>>>>>>> capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims
> >>>>>>>>>>> feel.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA
> >>>>>>>>>>> is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying
> >>>>>>>>>>> that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in
> >>>>>>>>>>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my New
> >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job.  If you
> >>>>>>>>>>> butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm saying,
> >>>>>>>>>>> then you should like to know that about 85% of my New Constitution has
> >>>>>>>>>>> now  been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read.  The last
> >>>>>>>>>>> 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted heads
> >>>>>>>>>>> with, first hand.  Once people begin showing appreciation for the 85%
> >>>>>>>>>>> of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become available.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But NOT on this forum.  The full document will be presented as part of
> >>>>>>>>>>> a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why this
> >>>>>>>>>>> country needs a New Constitution Now.  You guys can help speed things
> >>>>>>>>>>> along by talking-up my document on the NET.  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> >>>>>>>>>>> Patriot
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<keithinta...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey John!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation!  Jonathan,  Mark  and MJ are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> already chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and one of them
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maybe even will write a haiku in your honor!  Sugarshack Literal Truth might
> >>>>>>>>>>>> even have an orgasm in anticipation of reading your next missive!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:21 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stay tuned, People!  Tomorrow I will write you another essay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining why the "ritual" of most of our political-governmental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic resources,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise stupid.  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and fix-up.  The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (happiness) of your grandchildren.  There won't be any more fortunes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and little liberty if the US economy goes down-the-tubes.  By adapting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my New Constitution, the survival of the USA will be assured!  ï¿½ John
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest Distance;
>
> ...
>
> 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.

J. Ashley: You have failed to come up with a way to have the USA
survive with anarchy and zero taxes—your ideal. So, bug-off,
airhead. — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 21, 9:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You have failed to come up with a plan for putting YOUR New Constitution
> before the People for a vote.
>
> > Jonathan:  You get only one vote.  Whether or not my New Constitution
> > ratifies will be determined by the popular vote of the People, without
> > any state boundaries�the way all presidential elections must be in
> > order to be fair!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �
> > On Apr 21, 11:53 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> INLINE:
>
> >> On 04/20/2011 08:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:>  Jonathan:  You should move to Alaska and build yourself a log cabin in
> >>> the wilderness.
> >> How do you know that I don't live in a log cabin in Alaska?>  Since you would be living by your own hand, you would
> >>> have nothing to be taxed, and thus should be happy.
> >> I do not pay income taxes now.>     The POWER in my
> >>> New Constitution is revealed only by having a problem, then reading my
> >>> document and realizing that the solution to that problem is spelled-
> >>> out!
> >> YOUR New Constitution does not (and never will have) any "POWER." It
> >> will never be enacted.>  Frequently, the answers are found on several non-contiguous
> >>> pages.  But anyone who can read will see that they are protected.
> >> Can you say: convoluted.>  For
> >>> example: Though the words "speeding ticket" are never used, I can
> >>> guarantee you that no municipality in the country will ever pull over
> >>> anyone for a victimless crime.  My New Constitution prohibits having
> >>> any "fines" go to the government.  So, there is no motive for pulling
> >>> anyone over, since none of that fine can go to defray the cost of
> >>> government.
> >> How do you propose to enforce such a guarantee?>  Fines can be used for helping groups like United Way,
> >>> however.
> >> That would still fall under the category of "theft" of my property.>  If the police pull you over, it is they who will be most in
> >>> jeopardy of getting fired or jailed if they aren't deferential to
> >>> you.  And no person is required to show their �ID� to anyone.  The
> >>> police can�t, on a whim, stop anyone and ask to see �your papers� like
> >>> Nazis did in Germany.  They must be respectful of the people, unless
> >>> someone is known (beyond reasonable doubt) to have committed some
> >>> crime.  Then, and only then can the police play their game of cops and
> >>> robbers. � J. A. A. �
> >> Again, how do you propose to enforce such a guarantees?
>
> >>> On Apr 20, 12:31 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> As usual, I find several problem with what you wrote.
> >>>> 1) YOUR New Constitution is so convoluted that those who gained power
> >>>> under it would be using it for a doormat within months of its passage.
> >>>> (That point is mute, however, since YOUR New Constitution will NEVER
> >>>> gain acceptance.)
> >>>> 2) Any form of government that requires me -- through taxation (e.g.,
> >>>> theft) -- to perpetuate its existence is unacceptable.
> >>>> 3) Civil liberties are privileges that are granted. That is in direct
> >>>> opposition to freedom. Freedom is "a state of exemption from the power
> >>>> or control of another." If a government exists, those living under its
> >>>> dictates (however benevolent they may appear), are never free. Under any
> >>>> form of government, freedom is always illegal.
> >>>> 4) Government is "social engineering."
> >>>> On 04/20/2011 01:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan:  I read your self description of your being an
> >>>>> anarchist.  Is that why you dislike having a New Constitution that
> >>>>> actually tells government what it can and cannot do?  The very best
> >>>>> and most efficient government would be a wise, benevolent
> >>>>> dictatorship.  But that would end when the dictator died.  Government
> >>>>> under my New Constitution is mandated to be run efficiently.  And
> >>>>> "social engineering" is banned.  You should be on my side, because my
> >>>>> New Constitution will have civil liberties that are the maximum, and
> >>>>> costs that are approaching the minimum.  That means all Americans will
> >>>>> get to keep most of their hard-earned money!  Would you rather have
> >>>>> Democrats stealing your money?  Then, rally behind my save-the-USA
> >>>>> document!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>> On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites based
> >>>>>> on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your
> >>>>>> credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expression means.
> >>>>>> That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the
> >>>>>> USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems
> >>>>>> ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull off this
> >>>>>> tremendous task?
> >>>>>> On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational
> >>>>>>> Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.  Google
> >>>>>>> World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are very
> >>>>>>> naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the
> >>>>>>> noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> >>>>>>> TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on moderation
> >>>>>>> someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed?
> >>>>>>> Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill
> >>>>>>> their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> >>>>>>> committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> >>>>>>> resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has caused
> >>>>>>> more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who
> >>>>>>> ever lived, including Hitler.
> >>>>>>> Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government and
> >>>>>>> in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested,
> >>>>>>> tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for
> >>>>>>> giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you,
> >>>>>>> Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's viewed
> >>>>>>> you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you are so
> >>>>>>> screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> >>>>>>> better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some couch-
> >>>>>>> time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Einstein,
> >>>>>>>> Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or
> >>>>>>>> your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard
> >>>>>>>> message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> >>>>>>>> originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law.
> >>>>>>>> Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> >>>>>>>> responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in
> >>>>>>>>> those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews
> >>>>>>>>> are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such
> >>>>>>>>> nice people.  Israel should become a training place for successful
> >>>>>>>>> capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims
> >>>>>>>>> feel.
> >>>>>>>>> Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA
> >>>>>>>>> is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying
> >>>>>>>>> that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in
> >>>>>>>>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my New
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job.  If you
> >>>>>>>>> butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm saying,
> >>>>>>>>> then you should like to know that about 85% of my New Constitution has
> >>>>>>>>> now  been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read.  The last
> >>>>>>>>> 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted heads
> >>>>>>>>> with, first hand.  Once people begin showing appreciation for the 85%
> >>>>>>>>> of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become available.
> >>>>>>>>> But NOT on this forum.  The full document will be presented as part of
> >>>>>>>>> a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why this
> >>>>>>>>> country needs a New Constitution Now.  You guys can help speed things
> >>>>>>>>> along by talking-up my document on the NET.  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> >>>>>>>>> Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<keithinta...@gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hey John!
> >>>>>>>>>> I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation!  Jonathan,  Mark  and MJ are
> >>>>>>>>>> already chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and one of them
> >>>>>>>>>> maybe even will write a haiku in your honor!  Sugarshack Literal Truth might
> >>>>>>>>>> even have an orgasm in anticipation of reading your next missive!
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:21 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stay tuned, People!  Tomorrow I will write you another essay
> >>>>>>>>>>> explaining why the "ritual" of most of our political-governmental
> >>>>>>>>>>> processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic resources,
> >>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise stupid.  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and fix-up.  The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (happiness) of your grandchildren.  There won't be any more fortunes
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Mark: You should ask a history buff, not me. There is very little
"creativity" in history. In fact, history (other than time-line) is a
course which should not be taught in public schools! Glenn Beck not
withstanding! — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 21, 9:40 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way Einstein you have yet to tell me just exactly what if anything
> you  have that supports your position against Gaddafi ?? What has he done
> that is a clear and present danger to the US ??
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > J. Ashley:  Run your experiments in Belgium, then!  The USA would be
> > in civil war...   — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > John,
>
> > > It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone age without
> > > government. Belgium has been without a national government for more than
> > > 313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government doesn't make much
> > > of a difference in their daily lives."
>
> > > On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Jonathan:  You are showing some smarts there!  Since I am an untra-
> > > > conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left" of anyone,
> > > > because that would seem to make me... a God-damned liberal.  I
> > > > deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am the exact
> > > > opposite.  If your ego considers being an anarchist more conservative
> > > > than me, consider this: The USA would return to the 'stone ages'
> > > > within one month of there being no government(s).  So, your "ideal" of
> > > > no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on Earth.  Is
> > > > having you "get real" too much to ask?  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> >  Patriot
> > > > On Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> John,
>
> > > >> Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one be "right" of
> > > >> anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you NEVER answer
> > > >> questions posed to you.)
>
> > > >> On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> Jonathan:  For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist.  I
> > > >>> suggest you write your one paragraph constitution banning government.
> > > >>> Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't survive very long on
> > > >>> your own.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > >>> On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> But John, you're the one who has written a socialist constitution.
> > > >>>> On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>>>> Jonathan:  Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system
> > > >>>>> that made this country great; and by supposing that government
> > should
> > > >>>>> control everything (with him in charge).  The fact that you even
> > ask
> > > >>>>> that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a
> > > >>>>> socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are.  The remaining 5%
> > are
> > > >>>>> just stupid.  You're in both of those groups.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead
> > �
> > > >>>>> Patriot
> > > >>>>> On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> John,
> > > >>>>>> That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites
> > based
> > > >>>>>> on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your
> > > >>>>>> credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of
> > expression means.
> > > >>>>>> That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm
> > to the
> > > >>>>>> USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems
> > > >>>>>> ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull
> > off this
> > > >>>>>> tremendous task?
> > > >>>>>> On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational
> > > >>>>>>> Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.
> >  Google
> > > >>>>>>> World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are
> > very
> > > >>>>>>> naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from
> > the
> > > >>>>>>> noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> > > >>>>>>> TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on
> > moderation
> > > >>>>>>> someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be
> > killed?
> > > >>>>>>> Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who
> > kill
> > > >>>>>>> their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> > > >>>>>>> committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> > > >>>>>>> resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has
> > caused
> > > >>>>>>> more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person
> > who
> > > >>>>>>> ever lived, including Hitler.
> > > >>>>>>> Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government
> > and
> > > >>>>>>> in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard
> > arrested,
> > > >>>>>>> tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution
> > for
> > > >>>>>>> giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you,
> > > >>>>>>> Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's
> > viewed
> > > >>>>>>> you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you
> > are so
> > > >>>>>>> screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> > > >>>>>>> better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some
> > couch-
> > > >>>>>>> time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>
> >    wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Einstein,
> > > >>>>>>>> Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the
> > present, or
> > > >>>>>>>> your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the
> > standard
> > > >>>>>>>> message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> > > >>>>>>>> originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US
> > law.
> > > >>>>>>>> Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> > > >>>>>>>> responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of
> > "reasoning" in
> > > >>>>>>>>> those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why
> > Jews
> > > >>>>>>>>> are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be
> > such
> > > >>>>>>>>> nice people.  Israel should become a training place for
> > successful
> > > >>>>>>>>> capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds
> > Muslims
> > > >>>>>>>>> feel.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that
> > the USA
> > > >>>>>>>>> is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?)
> > saying
> > > >>>>>>>>> that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in
> > > >>>>>>>>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my
> > New
> > > >>>>>>>>> Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job.
> >  If you
> > > >>>>>>>>> butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm
> > saying,
> > > >>>>>>>>> then you should like to know that about 85% of my New
> > Constitution has
> > > >>>>>>>>> now  been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read.
> >  The last
> > > >>>>>>>>> 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted
> > heads
> > > >>>>>>>>> with, first hand.  Once people begin showing appreciation for
> > the 85%
> > > >>>>>>>>> of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become
> > available.
> > > >>>>>>>>> But NOT on this forum.  The full document will be presented as
> > part of
> > > >>>>>>>>> a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why
> > this
> > > >>>>>>>>> country needs a New Constitution Now.  You guys can help speed
> > things
> > > >>>>>>>>> along by talking-up my document on the NET.  ï¿½ John A.
> > Armistead �
> > > >>>>>>>>> Patriot
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<keithinta...@gmail.com>
> >      wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hey John!
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation!  Jonathan,
> >  Mark  and MJ are
> > > >>>>>>>>>> already chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and
> > one of them
> > > >>>>>>>>>> maybe even will write a haiku in your honor!  Sugarshack
> > Literal Truth might
> > > >>>>>>>>>> even have an orgasm in anticipation of reading your next
> > missive!
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:21 AM, NoEinstein<
> > noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Stay tuned, People!  Tomorrow I will write you another essay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> explaining why the "ritual" of most of our
> > political-governmental
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic
> > resources,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise stupid.  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >      wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and
> > fix-up.  The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (happiness) of your grandchildren.  There won't be any more
> > fortunes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and little liberty if the US economy goes down-the-tubes.
> >  By adapting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> my New Constitution, the survival of the USA will be
> > assured!  ï¿½ John
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Those interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest
> > Distance;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B.&        N.).  I'm
> > thrilled that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the word 'prosperity' is being mentioned more and more as a
> > cure for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our ailing economy (Capitalism over socialism).  That book
> > explains
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the 'build-up' to my writing the New Constitution.  Simple
> > things can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> turn this country around!  And none of them involving
> > conducting...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business-as-usual in Washington!  Trust me, Folks!  I know
> > what I am
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing.  99.5% of those in Washington are clueless!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:36 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >      wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark:  If you could, and would, read my document with an
> > open
>
> ...
>
> 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.

What Do Light Bulbs Have to do with the Commerce Clause?

April 22, 2011
What Do Light Bulbs Have to do with the Commerce Clause?
By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Rand Paul, freshman US Senator  from Kentucky, at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last month, summed up in a few choice sentences the Democratic Party progressive agenda:

You're really anti-choice on every consumer item that you've listed here, including light bulbs, refrigerators, toilets -- you name it, you can't go around your house without being told what to buy... You raise the cost of all the items with your rules, all your notions that you know what's best for me.


A few days ago, in further hearings on more appliance regulations, Sen. Paul continued his assault on the "boot heel of the collective," drawing from Ayn Rand.

Exhortations about light bulbs and liberty are good for a rally or entertainment for a cable news sound bite, or a late night comedy show.  But there's more going on here. 

It's time for us to insist that there is no basis in the US Constitution for home appliance regulations designed to control the consumption of electricity or water.  Any such statutes or regulations fail the Rehnquist Court reading of the Commerce Clause, Article I Sec 8 Clause 3: "Congress shall have the power ... to regulate Commerce ... among the several States ... " and usurp the Ninth Amendment from the people.

The central issue is how the Commerce Clause, previously distorted and stretched to underwrite any and every conceivable interference in our daily lives, may have finally found its high water mark under the conservative Rehnquist Court.  There is considerable scholarship underlining the original context of the Commerce Clause and its application, notably from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Law Professor Randy Barnett in his 2001 Chicago Law Review article "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" writes at the outset:

In United States v Lopez 1, [a Supreme Court opinion  where a  federal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibiting firearms within 1,000 yards of a school, was overturned ]for the first time in sixty years, the Supreme Court of the United States held a statute to be unconstitutional because it exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause 2. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas offered a critique of contemporary Commerce Clause doctrine--based on the original meaning of the clause--that went well beyond the majority opinion. According to Justice Thomas, "at the time the original Constitution was ratified, 'commerce' consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes." 3 He also cited the etymology of the word, which literally means "with merchandise." 4 He then noted that "when Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably." 5 The term "commerce," according to Justice Thomas, "was used in contradistinction to productive activities such as manufacturing and agriculture." 6


In a Connecticut Law Review article in 1997, law professors David Harlan and Glenn Reynolds, in a prescient overview "Taking Federalism Seriously," ostensibly about partial birth abortion, examined the inconsistencies in using the Commerce Clause to justify regulating any intrastate local transaction depending on the partisan whims of legislators.  Harlan and Reynolds derive their thesis also from United States vs Lopez noting the Court struck down the federal statute, not on 2nd Amendment grounds but on a more sweeping denial of traditional Commerce Clause assertions argued by the government.

Prior to Lopez nearly any product or service transacted locally but made available via interstate transport gave constitutional cover to far reaching federal restrictions and mandates.  While the Court in Lopez was mainly preoccupied with federalization of the criminal code, the majority coiled its arguments around the Commerce Clause stem.

Harlan and Reynolds summarize the majority opinion from Chief Justice Rehnquist in Lopez whereby Congress may only regulate "channels of interstate commerce," "instrumentalities of interstate commerce" (transportation modes), and "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

And as Harlan and Reynolds note, the abrupt and newly found narrow use of the Commerce Clause did not go unnoticed by dissenting Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens.  Breyer asserted Lopez is inconsistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence while Stevens said Lopez is "radical."

While Harlan and Reynolds are careful not to lend too much significance to Lopez in providing guidance to other Commerce Clause cases, following Lopez there have been two notable Supreme Court cases.  United States vs Morrison where parts of the federal statute Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were found to fail the Commerce Clause test formulated in Lopez.  And in 2001, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers where the majority found the Corps of Engineers did not have authority to regulate activity in waters isolated from interstate navigable waters.  And more recently where Judge Roger Vinson of the Federal District of Northern Florida in State of Florida et al vs United States Department of Health and Human Services struck down the individual mandate of ObamaCare, relying on the Commerce Clause guidance from Lopez.

Harlan and Reynolds cut to the heart of the matter in discussing Justice Thomas's concurrence in Lopez, revealing his own more circumscribed twist than any other conservative on the Court:

While the majority opinion stated that Commerce Clause-based statutes must deal with subjects that "substantially affect" interstate commerce, rather than merely "affect" it, Justice Thomas suggested that the whole "effects" debate was off the point. The power to regulate "Commerce . . . among the several States" means exactly what it says: the power to regulate the interstate buying and selling of goods. "Commerce" means buying and selling things--not manufacturing, and not simply "any form of economic activity."[FN76] The Constitution did not grant Congress power to regulate activities which merely affect (even in a substantial way) interstate commerce.


So, how does all of this affect light bulbs, refrigerators, washing machines, and low flow toilets?

In the case of electrical appliances, including light bulbs, the goal of most recent regulation has been to reduce consumption of electricity.  Since electricity consumption, as a matter of both physics and the economic structure of power generation and distribution, is necessarily a local (i.e. state) matter, any regulation at the federal level would run afoul of the Commerce Clause condition "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce" at least as read by the majority conservative justices in Lopez.

Electrical power consumption is local because no homeowner can buy power outside of local utilities who control local distribution.  In some states "retail wheeling" exists where a business can cut a deal from an out-of-state energy provider.  But the energy is still distributed via a local regulated utility and the user pays two rates -- a base power rate and a distribution rate.  Retail wheeling, in any event, is not available to residential customers, as far as I know.

Therefore any regulation on electrical appliances pertaining to energy consumption (read efficiency) can only come from a state, not the feds.  In short we don't consume power from an interstate enterprise.  We buy power from a local utility.  And how about the homeowner who relies on a propane generator, solar panels, or a wind generator?  What's interstate about that?  Thus the feds cannot regulate residential appliances at least as far as electricity usage is concerned.

What about an argument that appliance standards affect interstate commerce by the impact on CO2, other air emissions, or use of fossil fuels from interstate sources?  That argument fails the "substantially affects interstate commerce" test because  residential appliances, especially light bulbs,  are used at the time of day, early morning or evening, at the lowest base demand point, thus cannot affect the operation of power plant loadings locally, let alone across the nation.

In other words,  light bulbs can be either energy hogs or energy tightwads and have no impact on power generation costs, emissions, or fuel use.  If a homeowner uses fewer kwhs, the power plant must still be in operation.  If he or she uses more kwhs then the power plant will just soak up otherwise idle on-line capacity already fired up.  Because the operation of household light bulbs has negligible effects on interstate generation or transportation of electrical power, any federal statute regulating electrical devices for the consumption of energy must fail the Rehnquist Court test.

Just because light bulbs themselves are traded via interstate commerce does not justify using the Commerce Clause to regulate light bulbs re energy consumption.  Certainly Justice Thomas would vacate the EISA 2007 section on the phase out of inefficient incandescent light bulbs without breaking a sweat or writing more than one paragraph.

How about washing machines and Sen. Paul's favorite whipping boy, low flow toilets?  Since the primary purpose of washing machine regulations is to conserve the use of water and all residential water use is provided via a local water authority or by a private well, the feds can't possibly assert jurisdiction as long as the Rehnquist Court guidance under Lopez is upheld.  Certainly in some western states, water distribution and rights may be conveyed under complex interstate mechanisms.  Yes those mechanisms would properly be controlled by Congress under the Commerce Clause, but not individual household water usage. 

And just like light bulbs, the use of a single household low flow toilet or water saving washing machine cannot have any affect on the interstate water systems, whether from the flow of water from Lake Superior to the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the Colorado River, the Ohio River system or underground aquifers whose geology may cross under two or more states.

Robert Bork and Daniel Troy in a piece entitled "The Boundaries of the Commerce Clause"  have a rather gloomy outlook on whether the Commerce Clause can ever be restored to its original purpose:

There is no possibility, today, of adhering completely to the original constitutional design. Such a daring plan would require overturning the New Deal, the Great Society, and almost all of the vast network of federal legislation and regulation put in place in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century. It appears that the American people would be overwhelmingly against such a change and no court would attempt to force it upon them.


Well ok, let's not try to boil the ocean.  Let's start with a simple and symbolic case study -- light bulbs, refrigerators, washing machines, and yes, Rand Paul's low flow toilets.

But Rand Paul has tapped into the frustrations of the majority of regular Americans who are affronted by the arrogance of Congress in taking away consumer choices while interfering with every detail in their daily lives.  Can Sen. Paul also be a champion for the Constitution that should be the guarantor of what most Americans would like to believe but few have the resources to assert -- an enumerated power to be left alone?

See also: The CFL Fraud

Sources:

Randy E. Barnett "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause," University of Chicago Law Review - Winter, 2001 - 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101

David B. Kopel and Glenn Harlan Reynolds. "Taking Federalism Seriously: Lopez and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" Connecticut Law Review 30.1 (1997): 59-116.

Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy "Locating the Boundaries: The Scope of Congress's Power to Regulate Commerce."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/what_do_light_bulbs_have_to_do.html

Obama confirms: Income tax is slave tax


Obama confirms: Income tax is slave tax
Alan Keyes
Posted: April 22, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

More than a few commentators noticed the fact that in his speech on the subject, the budget-challenged Mr. Obama referred to tax increases as a way "to reduce spending in the tax code." As one of them pointed out, "The funniest part of his speech … was his contention that tax increases are now spending cuts." But is it right to assume that this is just quirky Obama logic? In fact his language logically and accurately reflects the truth about the income tax, truth I have many times pointed out in speeches and articles over the last 20 years.

As I pointed out in one of those articles, the income tax system gives the U.S. government "the prerogative to reach into people's pockets and claim as much money as it pleases before they have a chance to decide anything about it." If you and I made an agreement that gave me the power to control the use of a certain percentage of your income, to be decided by me, in principle how much of your income do I control? In principle I control all of it, of course. This is the power the income tax places in the hands of those who control the U.S. government at any given time. Therefore, it makes sense for them to speak as if every cent of the people's income belongs to the government. In principle, and for as long as the income tax system remains in place, it does.

At the beginning of Federalist 79, Alexander Hamilton observes that "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." If by and large this is true for individuals, what is likely to be the effect when government has such a power over the income of all the people? In the United States we are supposed to have a government of, by and for the people. The voice and will of the people is expressed in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The legislative and executive branches are supposed to be controlled by representatives of the people, chosen by elections that ascertain their preponderant will. But with the income tax system in place, once elected those officials come into a power over the people's subsistence and therefore over their will. Yet if, by this means, they may control the people's will, they cease to be the representatives of the people and become their master.

We have come to the era when this truth about the income tax system is no longer a matter of speculative reasoning. Thanks, among other things, to the Federal Reserve banking system, the elite faction has been able to use the government's control of the people's income to squander the people's resources; pawn the credit built up by over 200 years of good faith; and place this and future generations of Americans under a crushing burden of indebtedness to international bankers and foreign governments that threatens us and our posterity with perpetual debt slavery.

I have often warned that the income tax is a slave tax. The current fiscal and economic crisis allows every eye to see that this is a literal description, not a figure of speech. Moreover, the circumstances likely to arise from the economic breakdown that must result from failure to deal effectively with the crisis will likely include shortages, hardships and breakdowns of public order and safety that invite a more literal imposition of tyranny, one that discards even the outward appearance of government by consent. This is true even without taking into account the effects of possible emergencies associated with natural disasters or hostile acts by terrorists or other enemies of the United States.

Obama's use of language that overtly employs the enslaving logic of the income tax system ought to be a warning to all Americans still loyal to the constitutional liberty of the people. It warns against Obama's embrace of the communistic logic that overturns the unalienable rights of property in order to assert collective, government ownership of the income and assets of all the people. But it should also warn against the assumption that this logic is simply a function of the Obama faction's leftist ideology. The problem is not just with Obama, or with this or that communist, socialist or liberal faction of our leadership. The problem is that we are already living with the consequences of establishing institutions, like the income tax, that weave into the fabric of our daily lives a communist-style assault against the unalienable right to private property.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels point to the implementation of an income tax system like our present one as a crucial step toward achieving the abolition of private property, which they call the epitome of communism. Now Obama uses a concept of taxation that openly asserts the government's ownership of the income of all the people. So what was hidden from too many is now visible to all. This suggests that we are near to the time when the mask of respect for liberty and representative government will be discarded altogether. Or rather, we are arrived at a time when this is already taking place. Theatrical blather about phony cuts in government spending does nothing to address this threat. In fact, it purposefully distracts from it. The only leaders who are really taking seriously what America needs to do are those who stand firm against raising the debt ceiling and those who advocate in word and deed the principal step we must take to thwart the implementation of the communist economic agenda in America: Abolish the Income Tax. (What is the alternative? Find out here.)


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=289821

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: I'm not a world history buff, so forget about Belgium. The
welfare system in this country would stop; companies that had
government contracts would shut down; there would be no protected food
supply; there would be no law enforcement; crime would surge; the
power grid would shut down, and on-and-on. People would start using
their guns to protect themselves. Once "minorities" started
wanting... their share, there would be civil war. The USA can't
survive without some the public order that is provided by well thought-
out and agreed-to laws.

You are most correct that just and acceptable (to the masses) laws
don't require a government. My minimum, efficient government will
depend on having the citizens agree with and abide by their laws. Our
present federal government is totally dysfunctional, because Congress
and the White House wrongly suppose that it is they who run things.
WRONG! It is the People, in a Republic, who run things!!!!! Read my
New Constitution to see that even one law-abiding citizen,
knowledgeable of that document, is more powerful than any government
employee or elected official, including the President! — J. A.
Armistead — Patriot
>
On Apr 21, 9:39 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Onestone,
>
> At one full year with no government it is way past the "experimental" stage.
> It is running and no services have been cut to anyone that cares. Just why
> would the lack of a Congress and President would cause civil war ?? The laws
> are in place and so are the programs that see to peoples needs.
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > J. Ashley:  Run your experiments in Belgium, then!  The USA would be
> > in civil war...   — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > John,
>
> > > It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone age without
> > > government. Belgium has been without a national government for more than
> > > 313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government doesn't make much
> > > of a difference in their daily lives."
>
> > > On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Jonathan:  You are showing some smarts there!  Since I am an untra-
> > > > conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left" of anyone,
> > > > because that would seem to make me... a God-damned liberal.  I
> > > > deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am the exact
> > > > opposite.  If your ego considers being an anarchist more conservative
> > > > than me, consider this: The USA would return to the 'stone ages'
> > > > within one month of there being no government(s).  So, your "ideal" of
> > > > no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on Earth.  Is
> > > > having you "get real" too much to ask?  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> >  Patriot
> > > > On Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> John,
>
> > > >> Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one be "right" of
> > > >> anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you NEVER answer
> > > >> questions posed to you.)
>
> > > >> On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> Jonathan:  For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist.  I
> > > >>> suggest you write your one paragraph constitution banning government.
> > > >>> Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't survive very long on
> > > >>> your own.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > >>> On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> But John, you're the one who has written a socialist constitution.
> > > >>>> On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>>>> Jonathan:  Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system
> > > >>>>> that made this country great; and by supposing that government
> > should
> > > >>>>> control everything (with him in charge).  The fact that you even
> > ask
> > > >>>>> that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a
> > > >>>>> socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are.  The remaining 5%
> > are
> > > >>>>> just stupid.  You're in both of those groups.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead
> > �
> > > >>>>> Patriot
> > > >>>>> On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> John,
> > > >>>>>> That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites
> > based
> > > >>>>>> on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your
> > > >>>>>> credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of
> > expression means.
> > > >>>>>> That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm
> > to the
> > > >>>>>> USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems
> > > >>>>>> ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull
> > off this
> > > >>>>>> tremendous task?
> > > >>>>>> On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Dear Mark:  I own Google stock.  It's an American multinational
> > > >>>>>>> Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California.
> >  Google
> > > >>>>>>> World shows the new complex quite well.  In many ways you are
> > very
> > > >>>>>>> naive.  Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from
> > the
> > > >>>>>>> noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit
> > > >>>>>>> TREASON every day of their existence.  Would you put on
> > moderation
> > > >>>>>>> someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be
> > killed?
> > > >>>>>>> Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who
> > kill
> > > >>>>>>> their citizens?  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have
> > > >>>>>>> committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs
> > > >>>>>>> resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies.  He has
> > caused
> > > >>>>>>> more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person
> > who
> > > >>>>>>> ever lived, including Hitler.
> > > >>>>>>> Treason is a recognized capital offense.  Those in our government
> > and
> > > >>>>>>> in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard
> > arrested,
> > > >>>>>>> tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution
> > for
> > > >>>>>>> giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Keith suggested that you,
> > > >>>>>>> Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive".  He's
> > viewed
> > > >>>>>>> you all in a favorable light, before.  As for me, I suspect you
> > are so
> > > >>>>>>> screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a
> > > >>>>>>> better government.  That means you have schizophrenia.  Get some
> > couch-
> > > >>>>>>> time, Mark.  You need it!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>
> >    wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Einstein,
> > > >>>>>>>> Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the
> > present, or
> > > >>>>>>>> your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the
> > standard
> > > >>>>>>>> message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It
> > > >>>>>>>> originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US
> > law.
> > > >>>>>>>> Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the
> > > >>>>>>>> responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s).
> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Dear Keith:  I sensed that there was a common thread of
> > "reasoning" in
> > > >>>>>>>>> those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why
> > Jews
> > > >>>>>>>>> are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be
> > such
> > > >>>>>>>>> nice people.  Israel should become a training place for
> > successful
> > > >>>>>>>>> capitalism.  Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds
> > Muslims
> > > >>>>>>>>> feel.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that
> > the USA
> > > >>>>>>>>> is skating on?"  There was a message (Mark's responsibility?)
> > saying
> > > >>>>>>>>> that moderators must approve what I say.  Of course that in
> > > >>>>>>>>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my
> > New
> > > >>>>>>>>> Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job.
> >  If you
> > > >>>>>>>>> butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm
> > saying,
> > > >>>>>>>>> then you should like to know that about 85% of my New
> > Constitution has
> > > >>>>>>>>> now  been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read.
> >  The last
> > > >>>>>>>>> 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted
> > heads
> > > >>>>>>>>> with, first hand.  Once people begin showing appreciation for
> > the 85%
> > > >>>>>>>>> of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become
> > available.
> > > >>>>>>>>> But NOT on this forum.  The full document will be presented as
> > part of
> > > >>>>>>>>> a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why
> > this
> > > >>>>>>>>> country needs a New Constitution Now.  You guys can help speed
> > things
> > > >>>>>>>>> along by talking-up my document on the NET.  ï¿½ John A.
> > Armistead �
> > > >>>>>>>>> Patriot
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<keithinta...@gmail.com>
> >      wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hey John!
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation!  Jonathan,
> >  Mark  and MJ are
> > > >>>>>>>>>> already chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and
> > one of them
> > > >>>>>>>>>> maybe even will write a haiku in your honor!  Sugarshack
> > Literal Truth might
> > > >>>>>>>>>> even have an orgasm in anticipation of reading your next
> > missive!
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:21 AM, NoEinstein<
> > noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Stay tuned, People!  Tomorrow I will write you another essay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> explaining why the "ritual" of most of our
> > political-governmental
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic
> > resources,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise stupid.  ï¿½  John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> >      wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and
> > fix-up.  The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (happiness) of your grandchildren.  There won't be any more
> > fortunes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and little liberty if the US economy goes down-the-tubes.
> >  By adapting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> my New Constitution, the survival of the USA will be
> > assured!  ï¿½ John
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Those interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest
> > Distance;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B.&        N.).  I'm
> > thrilled that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the word 'prosperity' is being mentioned more and more as a
> > cure for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our ailing economy (Capitalism over socialism).  That book
> > explains
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the 'build-up' to my writing the New Constitution.  Simple
> > things can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> turn this country around!  And none of them involving
> > conducting...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business-as-usual in Washington!  Trust me, Folks!  I know
> > what I am
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing.  99.5% of those in Washington are clueless!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:36 am,
>
> ...
>
> 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.

**JP** Dhalta Suraj





Re: Now we have a Mass equivalent to the Wisconsin union battle - this time with the speaker of the Mass House

Hey, you leave our Speaker alone! He's the first of the last 4 that
hasn't been indicted or convicted by the feds.

Dems all, of course.

Of course, the term is young . . .

On Apr 21, 8:49 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/04/21/pu...
>
>      Don't you love the letter from the Union leader about future
> campaign endorsements would depend on whether the lawmakers come down on
> this issue.  The hell with the people; only the union matters.

--
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: UC BERKELEY CONFERENCE ON ISLAMOPHOBIA - you may watch live and ask questions live chat

A  UC Berkley Conference on Islamophobia?
 
Again, you can pretty much tell what entitites are legitimate, or not, merely by their catch phrases and suppositions.
 
I wonder if Angela Davis will be at this conference??


 
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Manoj Padhi <manojpadhi@gmail.com> wrote:


NOW LIVE ONLINE: UC BERKELEY CONFERENCE ON ISLAMOPHOBIA [2days only]....more

Dear Readers:

Any one wants to know more about The Religion of Peace - may ask questions via chat..



-Manoj Padhi


--
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.