Dear Tico: Every sentence is a "book" in and of itself. Realize that
lawyers, like you claim to be, will be excluded from screwing-up the
USA like they have done for too long. A judge or justice violating
even a sentence of my Constitution can be fired on-the-spot by any
prudent citizen. Working for government means being a SERVANT of the
people. Servants who screw up can be fired; and it doesn't take a
court decision or the next election to make that firing final. Come
back to the USA and get a government job, and I will take great pride
in firing you as soon as you fail to respect the civil rights of me or
anyone. You terse comments on this group show you have little respect
for others. How did you turn out so badly? — John A. Armistead —
Author and Patriot
On May 13, 8:56 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <<<That New Constitution of
> mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on!>>>
>
> Since you have never seen fit to post your "New Constitution" and all
> anyone can do is see bits and pieces out of context I'll reserve my
> "hope" for more tangible things... like three wish genies and such.
>
> On May 13, 5:00 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Folks: Many of you may not realize that the present "thread", in reply
> > to MJ's Limbaugh post, summarizes how—in just a single day—the
> > hopefully-awake voters can forever correct our BROKEN government;
> > broken media; and too-often two-faced businesses (Which are only doing
> > the same 'wrongs' that their competitors do.) that cause 80% of
> > American's to feel our government is headed in the wrong direction.
> > If 80% of us don't like government, then why do we keep "doing
> > business" with them? FIRE their asses and put in place a founding-
> > father-approved government that will benefit the VAST majority of
> > Americans, not just the 'criminal' simple majority that has divided
> > this country down-the-aisle for over two centuries! Disallow ALL
> > group influences, so that government can finally be reined-in to the
> > benefit of us all! The solution is to FREE capitalism and to get
> > government off of our backs. Do that, and there will be enough
> > charitable people willing to assure that no truly needy person will
> > lack having their survival necessities met. In other words: Improve
> > the dog-eat-dog world out there, and nice people will, once again,
> > start caring to help their neighbors, rather than saying... "Let
> > government do it." Folks, government is KILLING this country! ***
> > Tell your friends and relatives what I say. That New Constitution of
> > mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on! — John A. Armistead —
> > Author and Patriot
>
> > On Apr 15, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Dear MJ: Sorry for the delay in replying; I've gotten out of the
> > > habit of looking toward this group. As you know, Amendment 10
> > > empowers the States, or the Citizens, to handle public issues not
> > > spelled out in the Constitution as being specifically delegated to the
> > > Federal Government, nor prohibited being handled by the States.
> > > Nothing in my New Constitution changes that Amendment.
>
> > > Since the present Constitution requires that the States uphold and
> > > sware alligance to the Constitution, the ratification of "a" (or my)
> > > New Constitution will require that the States continue to do so. The
> > > only amendment that I even slightly diminished is Amendment 1.
> > > Therein, I deny freedom of speech to those in the professional media
> > > who had gotten to use (abuse) their power by talking about their
> > > personal political ideals, while the non-professional man-on-the-
> > > street doesn't get a similar voice. When Rush Limbaugh, David
> > > Letterman, or Oprah can use their celebrity to sway voters, that
> > > corrupts our Representative Republic.
>
> > > Don't worry that I have stopped fair news coverage. In the early days
> > > of television, events were covered LIVE, as these happened. But now,
> > > the 24-7, 365 day a year programs have biased reporters telling you
> > > what has happened and saying such things as such-and-such candidate
> > > has no chance of getting the nomination. Such statements, whether
> > > 'fair and balanced' or not, are effectively wagging the dog. Even
> > > reading news with a raised eyebrow is getting to have an influence
> > > that no free society can allow! If the people are allowed to see the
> > > daily events as they happen, they are perfectly capable of making up
> > > their own minds how to vote on election day. The entire new Amendment
> > > 1 follows. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
>
> > > "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > > be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: *** the
> > > freedom of speech of those Citizens who don't work for the media; the
> > > freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium; the right
> > > of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any Citizen or group
> > > to petition government or any of its branches or departments for
> > > redress of grievances. Citizens so petitioning government shall
> > > receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just
> > > responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly read,
> > > understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or
> > > requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to so respond to a
> > > rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on a single
> > > provable instance, terminate the apt one's employment, especially
> > > those in management or public office—including judges and justices—who
> > > ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent Citizen who
> > > has been diligent in having a grievance properly addressed, or in
> > > having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No judge or justice
> > > shall presume that by performing the above required duties, that they
> > > in any way might be compromising their objectivity or fairness in
> > > court; justice be not "blind", but well informed. Freedom of the
> > > press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable truthfulness
> > > in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or deliberate omission
> > > of the truth—except in cases of obvious fiction or satire—is
> > > prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news medium has a
> > > collective voice (we) or position on any issue is prohibited, as for
> > > example via: anonymous editorials; regularly occurring accompanying
> > > comments; commentary programs financed by, or ideologically screened
> > > by, the same news medium; editorials named as being authored by
> > > management; editorial comments by others that are in any way
> > > ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments occurring
> > > at specific times or designated locations that most would come to
> > > associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > > innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > > its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > > job to hawk their personal political preferences—at risk of loss of
> > > license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > > promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > > analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > > pending election or referendum, nor badger a candidate or office-
> > > holder with acrid questions, nor violate the latter's right to privacy
> > > by intentionally revealing non criminal interpersonal dealings. Any
> > > person(s) who does the latter is committing a felony. However,
> > > factual, thorough coverage of the candidates or referenda issues—on an
> > > as occurs basis—is allowed, provided there are no comments nor
> > > actions, as above, and provided the same unbiased coverage is given to
> > > all of the candidates or to all of the referenda issues. No medium's
> > > programs or formats, nor the status of any of its associated employees
> > > shall unduly influence any election or governmental process, or the
> > > business shall be closed. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
> > > medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > > others, but if a person is harmed by the medium's content, they shall
> > > be allowed to reply—without editing—in that medium. Each medium shall
> > > respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> > > medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> > > not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
> > > government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment—
> > > being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > > thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the
> > > truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive
> > > commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any
> > > candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> > > campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > > felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > > interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
> > > public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall
> > > display active public records without the free consent of the apt
> > > parties."
>
> > > On Apr 9, 6:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> I would be curious of any response he might provide.
> > > > MUCH of your statist embrace neglects Amendment X.
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > --MJ
> > > > "No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person." -- Lysander Spooner At 05:23 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ:
> > > > It's been about nine months since my last reply on this news group. I
> > > > was so intrigued by that post of yours: "An Open Letter to Rush
> > > > Limbaugh", by L. Neil Smith, a Civil Libertarian, that I penned him
> > > > the following long email about myNewConstitution—which many of you
> > > > have at least heard about. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
> > > > 4/09/12
> > > > Dear L. Neil Smith:
> > > > I happily read your "open" letter to Rush Limbaugh. I also, happily,
> > > > voted for Ron Paul in the SC primary. I am ultra conservative on
> > > > fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I've marveled how
> > > > expertly
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment