Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
petition
---
oh, like soldiers are people who protect our freedom?
no offense, but we don't need lawyers or soldiers to protect our
freedom
On May 24, 10:58 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, Thank you for the compliment!!
>
> Basically what I can take from your non-answer is a quote from Pelosi,
> "you must pass the ..... to find out what is in it."
>
> Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
> petition ...regardless of how ridiculous the petition...
>
> On May 24, 8:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Re: An Open Letter to Ron Paul
First, Thank you for the compliment!!
Basically what I can take from your non-answer is a quote from Pelosi,
"you must pass the ..... to find out what is in it."
Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
petition ...regardless of how ridiculous the petition...
On May 24, 8:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Basically what I can take from your non-answer is a quote from Pelosi,
"you must pass the ..... to find out what is in it."
Lawyers like me are the people that protect your "right" to
petition ...regardless of how ridiculous the petition...
On May 24, 8:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Best condom ad.
--
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: An Open Letter to Ron Paul
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.
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.
New Navy Posters
|
|
.
--
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.
Obama & surrogates mount aggressive campaign to intimidate the chief justice of the United States ....
By Kathleen Parker, Published: May 22
Novelist John Grisham could hardly spin a more provocative fiction: The president and his surrogates mount an aggressive campaign to intimidate the chief justice of the United States, implying ruin and ridicule should he fail to vote in a pivotal case according to the ruling political party's wishes.
If only it were fiction.
The justice is, of course, John Roberts and the case involves the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. Obamacare, which would be affordable only if the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance.
The left's narrative goes as follows: If the justices side with the Obama administration, they will be viewed as brilliant and nonpartisan. If the reverse occurs, why then, the justices are partisan, judicial activists who have delegitimized the court.
Writing in the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen laid it out for Roberts, whose vote is likely to be decisive: "In addition to deciding what kind of chief justice he wants to be, he has to decide what kind of legal conservatism he wants to embrace. Of course, if the Roberts court strikes down health care reform by a 5-4 vote, then the chief justice's stated goal of presiding over a less divisive court will be viewed as an irredeemable failure."
Lest there be any lingering confusion, permit me: Vote our way, Chief Justice Roberts, or you will go down in history as having abrogated your duty; your reputation will be destroyed; and the country will hold you accountable for not only withholding health care from the American people but also for rolling back the New Deal.
In so many words.
Wait, the New Deal? Yes, according to many on the left, including Rosen, if the court rolls back Obamacare, it will also roll back the New Deal. Legal scholars on the right insist otherwise, noting that lawyers for the plaintiffs were explicit in denying any interest in overturning precedents.
I leave this debate to others more worthy, but the idea that decisions must be popular and/or bipartisan is silly on its face. Just because something is popular doesn't make it "right" or legally correct. And, difficult as this is to accept in our Twitter culture, Supreme Court justices needn't be popular.
Nevertheless, the left is pushing many such non-legal arguments, including that the court shouldn't overturn a "popular" legislative act. Even the president advanced this argument as recently as last month, although the ACA is not, in fact, all that popular.
Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama said: "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy also recently publicly lobbied Roberts, saying he trusts that the chief justice has "a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch." And, "it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce."
This not-so-stealth campaign to influence the Supreme Court is obnoxious, if not unethical. It is also factually challenged. Overturning a law would not be unprecedented or extraordinary, as any first-year law student could tell you, but don't take my word for it. Harvard University's Laurence Tribe, one of Obama's professors and a leading liberal scholar of constitutional law, said that his former student "obviously misspoke."
It happens. Yet criticizing the Supreme Court is a consistent refrain from Obama, who began his presidency by scolding the justices. During his first State of the Union address, Obama broke decorum by criticizing the justicesfor their Citizens United ruling, saying the court had "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."
Talk about extraordinary.
Publicly chastising the court — and now taunting Roberts specifically — seems to have two purposes. One is to get under Roberts's skin in the hopes that he'll rule the "correct," if not necessarily "legally correct," way. Two is to lay the groundwork for declaring the court illegitimate if all or part of Obamacare is overturned.
Either way, it's politics at its filthiest and is beneath the dignity of the court — and of the White House. Unfortunately for Roberts, it's up to the chief justice to hold the bar high.
--
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.
Thank goodness Nancy Pelosi didn’t do this…
WordPress.com
--
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: Fwd: Obama donates 7 Alaskan/American Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars
they're not his to donate
On May 24, 5:07 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Obama donates 7 Alaskan/American Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars This
> > is what our beloved (?) president Obama has done in 2012 for America so far
> > this year. This was just sent to me, and got very little press to keep it
> > unknown from the American public. Please read the following to see what is
> > happening. Why is he getting away with all of this I hear he is going to
> > give away all the 'RED' states to help in his re-election.
>
> > Obama Donates 7 Alaskan Islands to Putin for Zero dollars
> > This is what our beloved president Obama has done in 2012 for America so
> > far this year. I am sure there will be more to come along these lines. This
> > president needs to be impeached. This was just sent to me, and got very
> > little press to keep it unknown from the American public. Please read the
> > following to see what is happening.
> > [image: Obama donates 7 Alaskan/American Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/MyCrazyEmail>
>
> > Is there a "REST OF THE STORY"?
> > This article on Feb. 16, 2012 appears in very few places. Apparently, the
> > regular "professional reporters" consider Obama giving away islands
> > belonging to Alaska and part of the United States<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/united-states/>as no big deal. Obama is giving these islands to Russia for free, no cost,
> > $zero money or any other consideration. Guess what? The state legislature
> > in Alaska (still one of our 50 states) voted several times in opposition to
> > THE GIVEAWAY! The islands have billions of barrels of OIL and Obama could
> > let oil companies lease parts of the islands and start drilling for MORE
> > OIL!! Should you suspect Obama was trying to sneak this by……..? Why?
> > WorldNetDaily.com
>
> > Obama's State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden
> > Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.
>
> > The seven islands in the Arctic Ocean<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/arctic-ocean/>and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
> > The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of
> > oil-rich seabed's surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior
> > estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.
>
> > The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a
> > maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal
> > government <http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/federal-government/> itself
> > drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But
> > as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by
> > President Obama or Secretary Clinton.
>
> > The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not
> > allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any
> > opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature
> > has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn't
> > seem to care.
>
> > The imperiled Arctic Ocean<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/arctic-ocean/>islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became
> > American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas
> > Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is
> > 3,000 square miles in size.
>
> > Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/george-washington/>DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and
> > claimed these three islands for the United States<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/united-states/>.
> > He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher
> > James Gordon Bennett. The ship's crew received a hero's welcome back in
> > Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.
>
> > In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper
> > Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in
> > Seward's 1867 treaty with Russia.
>
> > Now is the time for the Obama administration<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/obama-administration/>to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State
> > Department's maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return
> > for giving up Alaska's sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won
> > the Cold War and should start acting like it.
>
> > Also see Link 1,2 below
> > Link 1.
> >http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-...
> > Link 2.http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=39807
>
> > The State Dept. Watch says:
> >http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/GiveawaySummary.htm
> > And you can "Google" many more links with "Alaska island giveaway"
>
> > This is the most despicable man ever born. Why is he getting away with all
> > of this?
>
> > —————————————————————–
>
> > *Hold on there Bob, I went over tohttp://www.factcheck.organd looked
> > this up. Below is a portion of their findings.*
>
> > A look at the map will give the reader some notion of the frozen "Alaskan"
> > islands under discussion. All are far closer to the Russian mainland than
> > to the Alaskan mainland. All lie on the Russian side of the U.S.-Russia
> > maritime boundary set by a treaty that the U.S. Senate ratified
> > overwhelmingly more than two decades ago, after being signed by President
> > George H.W. Bush, and with the support of both of Alaska's senators.
> > <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BIMm6GveLdM/T7ZNLGEWmkI/AAAAAAAAqtE/1wyusW_...>
>
> > The largest, Wrangel Island (in Russian, Ostrov Vrangelya), is named for
> > the Russian explorer Ferdinand P. Wrangel, who heard of the island from
> > Siberian natives as early as 1820. According to the Encyclopedia
> > Britannica, Wrangel did not land on it while mapping the Siberian coast
> > that year. The first European to sight it may have been the British
> > explorer Capt. Henry Kellett, who in 1849 discovered and landed on nearby
> > Herald Island, and saw Wrangel in the distance.
>
> > The uninhabited Wrangel Island was sighted by U.S. vessels in 1867 and
> > 1881, but not settled. A Canadian explorer named Vilhjalmur Stefansson and
> > survivors of a disastrous expedition reached the island in 1914. But when
> > Stefansson later tried to claim Wrangel for Canada without authorization,
> > he caused an international incident, infuriating the Canadian government.
> > Then in 1926 the Soviet Union<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/soviet-union/>staked a claim to the island and settled a few native families there…
>
> > …And sure enough, no president or secretary of state since has shown any
> > interest in disputing the Soviet/Russian claim to Wrangel Island or the
> > others. Which brings us to the present accusation that President Obama is
> > somehow giving away something the U.S. has never claimed to own. How can
> > that be?
>
> > For one thing, the maritime boundary treaty has never been ratified by the
> > Russians, which is required for it to take full force. By the time the U.S.
> > Senate had ratified the treaty (signed by the Soviets the previous year),
> > the Soviet Union <http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/soviet-union/> was
> > near collapse. Shortly afterward, the Russian Federation notified the U.S.
> > government <http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/u-s-government/> by
> > diplomatic note that it would continue to abide by the terms of the
> > agreement on a provisional basis, however.
>
> > Ironically, in view of claims of a U.S. "giveaway," it is the Russians who
> > have sought to renegotiate the terms of the boundary treaty on grounds that
> > their side gave up too much to the United States. A history of the matter,
> > by Vlad M. Kaczynski of the Warsaw School of Economics, published in the
> > May 1, 2007, edition of the Russian Analytical Digest, details why the new
> > Russian Federation refused to ratify the treaty. Read More
> >http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/.
>
> > ?
>
>
>
> State_Department_Map.png
> 168KViewDownload
>
> This-Never-Made-It-To.jpg
> 54KViewDownload
>
> 1.jpg
> 19KViewDownload
--
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.
On May 24, 5:07 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Obama donates 7 Alaskan/American Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars This
> > is what our beloved (?) president Obama has done in 2012 for America so far
> > this year. This was just sent to me, and got very little press to keep it
> > unknown from the American public. Please read the following to see what is
> > happening. Why is he getting away with all of this I hear he is going to
> > give away all the 'RED' states to help in his re-election.
>
> > Obama Donates 7 Alaskan Islands to Putin for Zero dollars
> > This is what our beloved president Obama has done in 2012 for America so
> > far this year. I am sure there will be more to come along these lines. This
> > president needs to be impeached. This was just sent to me, and got very
> > little press to keep it unknown from the American public. Please read the
> > following to see what is happening.
> > [image: Obama donates 7 Alaskan/American Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/MyCrazyEmail>
>
> > Is there a "REST OF THE STORY"?
> > This article on Feb. 16, 2012 appears in very few places. Apparently, the
> > regular "professional reporters" consider Obama giving away islands
> > belonging to Alaska and part of the United States<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/united-states/>as no big deal. Obama is giving these islands to Russia for free, no cost,
> > $zero money or any other consideration. Guess what? The state legislature
> > in Alaska (still one of our 50 states) voted several times in opposition to
> > THE GIVEAWAY! The islands have billions of barrels of OIL and Obama could
> > let oil companies lease parts of the islands and start drilling for MORE
> > OIL!! Should you suspect Obama was trying to sneak this by……..? Why?
> > WorldNetDaily.com
>
> > Obama's State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden
> > Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.
>
> > The seven islands in the Arctic Ocean<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/arctic-ocean/>and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
> > The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of
> > oil-rich seabed's surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior
> > estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.
>
> > The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a
> > maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal
> > government <http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/federal-government/> itself
> > drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But
> > as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by
> > President Obama or Secretary Clinton.
>
> > The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not
> > allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any
> > opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature
> > has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn't
> > seem to care.
>
> > The imperiled Arctic Ocean<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/arctic-ocean/>islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became
> > American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas
> > Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is
> > 3,000 square miles in size.
>
> > Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/george-washington/>DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and
> > claimed these three islands for the United States<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/united-states/>.
> > He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher
> > James Gordon Bennett. The ship's crew received a hero's welcome back in
> > Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.
>
> > In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper
> > Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in
> > Seward's 1867 treaty with Russia.
>
> > Now is the time for the Obama administration<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/obama-administration/>to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State
> > Department's maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return
> > for giving up Alaska's sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won
> > the Cold War and should start acting like it.
>
> > Also see Link 1,2 below
> > Link 1.
> >http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-...
> > Link 2.http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=39807
>
> > The State Dept. Watch says:
> >http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/GiveawaySummary.htm
> > And you can "Google" many more links with "Alaska island giveaway"
>
> > This is the most despicable man ever born. Why is he getting away with all
> > of this?
>
> > —————————————————————–
>
> > *Hold on there Bob, I went over tohttp://www.factcheck.organd looked
> > this up. Below is a portion of their findings.*
>
> > A look at the map will give the reader some notion of the frozen "Alaskan"
> > islands under discussion. All are far closer to the Russian mainland than
> > to the Alaskan mainland. All lie on the Russian side of the U.S.-Russia
> > maritime boundary set by a treaty that the U.S. Senate ratified
> > overwhelmingly more than two decades ago, after being signed by President
> > George H.W. Bush, and with the support of both of Alaska's senators.
> > <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BIMm6GveLdM/T7ZNLGEWmkI/AAAAAAAAqtE/1wyusW_...>
>
> > The largest, Wrangel Island (in Russian, Ostrov Vrangelya), is named for
> > the Russian explorer Ferdinand P. Wrangel, who heard of the island from
> > Siberian natives as early as 1820. According to the Encyclopedia
> > Britannica, Wrangel did not land on it while mapping the Siberian coast
> > that year. The first European to sight it may have been the British
> > explorer Capt. Henry Kellett, who in 1849 discovered and landed on nearby
> > Herald Island, and saw Wrangel in the distance.
>
> > The uninhabited Wrangel Island was sighted by U.S. vessels in 1867 and
> > 1881, but not settled. A Canadian explorer named Vilhjalmur Stefansson and
> > survivors of a disastrous expedition reached the island in 1914. But when
> > Stefansson later tried to claim Wrangel for Canada without authorization,
> > he caused an international incident, infuriating the Canadian government.
> > Then in 1926 the Soviet Union<http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/soviet-union/>staked a claim to the island and settled a few native families there…
>
> > …And sure enough, no president or secretary of state since has shown any
> > interest in disputing the Soviet/Russian claim to Wrangel Island or the
> > others. Which brings us to the present accusation that President Obama is
> > somehow giving away something the U.S. has never claimed to own. How can
> > that be?
>
> > For one thing, the maritime boundary treaty has never been ratified by the
> > Russians, which is required for it to take full force. By the time the U.S.
> > Senate had ratified the treaty (signed by the Soviets the previous year),
> > the Soviet Union <http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/soviet-union/> was
> > near collapse. Shortly afterward, the Russian Federation notified the U.S.
> > government <http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/u-s-government/> by
> > diplomatic note that it would continue to abide by the terms of the
> > agreement on a provisional basis, however.
>
> > Ironically, in view of claims of a U.S. "giveaway," it is the Russians who
> > have sought to renegotiate the terms of the boundary treaty on grounds that
> > their side gave up too much to the United States. A history of the matter,
> > by Vlad M. Kaczynski of the Warsaw School of Economics, published in the
> > May 1, 2007, edition of the Russian Analytical Digest, details why the new
> > Russian Federation refused to ratify the treaty. Read More
> >http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/.
>
> > ?
>
>
>
> State_Department_Map.png
> 168KViewDownload
>
> This-Never-Made-It-To.jpg
> 54KViewDownload
>
> 1.jpg
> 19KViewDownload
--
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: [NEWS] Obama's Rather Impressive List of "Accomplishments"
----
Obama's Rather Impressive List of "Accomplishments"
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party, a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.
First President to recommend changing our National Anthem as it portrays and promotes violence and is warlike in its theme.
First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer Breakfast and activities.
First President to initiate a Cash for Clunkers Program to clean up exhaust that adds to global warming, then extended it because it was so popular — wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to bypass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory in.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Americorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to pledge complete transparency while campaigning, then hide his medical, educational,and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an and tells us that the early morning Islamic call to worship is the most beautiful sound on earth.
Now it is up to us Freedom-loving Americans to see to it that he is voted out after his FIRST term.
.
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
--
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.