Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: You may be able to "escape" if things go bad in one or two of
your countries. I'm fighting to save the USA, because this is the
only country I have! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Feb 25, 12:15 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hold three passports and love every one of my countries....
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Ashley <
>
> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >  It appears to me you are about self-glorification, not patriotism.
>
> > On 2/25/2011 7:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Socialist-Communist:  There is three or four times more MEAT in
> > the 40% of my New Constitution, regularly printed in the thread, than
> > in the entire original Constitution!  In the RUDEST way, you've
> > attacked me for not showing you the 60%, when you haven't cared enough
> > to even look back for the meaty 40%!  Make your own post, traitor.
> > I'm about saving the USA.  I have a "pointed wooden stake" for the
> > heart of anyone who stands in my way!  — J. A. A. —  Patriot
>
> >   On Feb 23, 11:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >  John,
>
> > I was under the impression when I joined this political "discussion"
> > group that folks subscribed to the group to discuss political issues.
>
> > Your failure to post YOUR New Constitution when at least four people
> > (including myself) have expressed a sincere interest in reading it shows
> > you are not interested in having it enacted. Either that or you are
> > afraid of the feedback you will receive.
>
> > I seem to recall your concern with publishing it was it isn't
> > copyrighted. Would a true "patriot" (as you continually label yourself)
> > be more concerned with the direction in which his country is headed or
> > HIS copyright protection? As it stands now, YOUR New Constitution will
> > likely die when you do because no one else will ever have a chance to
> > read it.
>
> > Your claim that I am "likely socialist-communist" shows you have never
> > read anything I have posted to this group. If you had you would know
> > that I come real close to believing that the government that governs
> > best is no government at all. A completely voluntary society could not
> > possibly be any worse than the socialist police state we now live in.
>
> > Your comment, "You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!"
> > only confirms my suspicion that you are a wanna-be dictator. If you were
> > a moderator for this group, I would likely have been banned long ago
> > because I dared to comment on YOUR posts.
>
> > On 2/23/2011 6:33 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >  Dear Jonathan:  Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> > MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> > communist.  You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!  ï¿½
> > John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >  How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is ever
> > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
>
> >    On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
>
> >    That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > have
> > had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > President
> > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of
> > a
> > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To wit:
> > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > throats.
> > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>    wrote:
>
> >  Dear Keith:  Thanks for your rational-toned reply.  My New
> > Constitution will indeed be copyrighted.  But only those parts of it
> > not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies, but to
> > be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, maliciously,
> > make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to side-track
> > my efforts.
> > I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for fourteen
> > years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises highlighted
> > in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts.  What
> > is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the original
> > constitution.  Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with our
> > Constitution.
> > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could have
> > had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > out of office any public official or employee, including the President
> > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of a
> > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To wit:
> > "1st Amendment:  No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > be secular.  No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
> > other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and the
> > right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > branches or departments for redress of grievances.  Citizens so
> > petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> > comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities who
> > have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of
> > the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications.  Failure
> > to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall,
> > on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment,
> > especially those in management or public office�including judges and
> > justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent
> > Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld.  No
> > judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above required
> > duties, that they in any way might be compromising their objectivity
> > or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed.
> > Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable
> > truthfulness in reporting.  Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or
> > satire�is prohibited.  Stating or implying that a particular news
> > medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, or
> > ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named as
> > being authored by management; editorial comments by others that are in
> > any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments
> > occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would
> > come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > innocuous.  No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss of
> > license or closure of the business.  Flagrantly editing news to
> > promote the ideology of management is a felony.  No medium shall
> > analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > pending election or referendum.  Nor shall they invite others outside
> > of the media to do so.  But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
> > provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> > the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all
> > of the referenda issues.  It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action.  No
> > medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall
> > be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium.  Each medium shall
> > respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> > medium.  Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> > not be excused by the media response.  A medium reporting on
> > government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment�
> > being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > thoughtful dissent nor its coverage.  Every medium shall favor the
> > truth over supposition, without parity nor bias.  False or deceptive
> > commercial advertising is prohibited.  Deliberate use by any
> > candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> > campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > felony.  No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
> > public office; flagrant violation is a felony.  No medium shall
> > display active public records without the free consent of the apt
> > parties."
> > Keith, the above should highlight the extreme attention to detail I've
> > put into my document.  No person, by a casual comment, shall have the
> > "right" to denigrate my efforts.  The following proviso is at the
> > closing of my New Constitution:
> > "Notes:  (1.) *Italicized text represents portions of the New
> > Constitution which shall be omitted unless separately and specifically
> > approved by 60% of the voters.  Voting to approve the New Constitution
> > shall not be a vote on italicized portions.  (2.) Any person, group or
> > business which polls the People on their support or non support of
> > this New Constitution or its parts prior to the national
>
> >   ..
>
> > read more »
>
> > --
> > Don't rely on an overpriced attorney. Learn how you can control judges and
> > lawyers <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004> yourself!
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.*

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts,
that identifies you as a socialist-communist. Bug-off, loser! — J.
A. A. —
>
On Feb 25, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> It appears to me you are about self-glorification, not patriotism.
>
> On 2/25/2011 7:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Socialist-Communist:  There is three or four times more MEAT in
> > the 40% of my New Constitution, regularly printed in the thread, than
> > in the entire original Constitution!  In the RUDEST way, you've
> > attacked me for not showing you the 60%, when you haven't cared enough
> > to even look back for the meaty 40%!  Make your own post, traitor.
> > I'm about saving the USA.  I have a �pointed wooden stake� for the
> > heart of anyone who stands in my way!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �  Patriot
> > On Feb 23, 11:21 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> I was under the impression when I joined this political "discussion"
> >> group that folks subscribed to the group to discuss political issues.
>
> >> Your failure to post YOUR New Constitution when at least four people
> >> (including myself) have expressed a sincere interest in reading it shows
> >> you are not interested in having it enacted. Either that or you are
> >> afraid of the feedback you will receive.
>
> >> I seem to recall your concern with publishing it was it isn't
> >> copyrighted. Would a true "patriot" (as you continually label yourself)
> >> be more concerned with the direction in which his country is headed or
> >> HIS copyright protection? As it stands now, YOUR New Constitution will
> >> likely die when you do because no one else will ever have a chance to
> >> read it.
>
> >> Your claim that I am "likely socialist-communist" shows you have never
> >> read anything I have posted to this group. If you had you would know
> >> that I come real close to believing that the government that governs
> >> best is no government at all. A completely voluntary society could not
> >> possibly be any worse than the socialist police state we now live in.
>
> >> Your comment, "You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!"
> >> only confirms my suspicion that you are a wanna-be dictator. If you were
> >> a moderator for this group, I would likely have been banned long ago
> >> because I dared to comment on YOUR posts.
>
> >> On 2/23/2011 6:33 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear Jonathan:  Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> >>> MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> >>> communist.  You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!  ï¿½
> >>> John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is ever
> >>>> allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
> >>>> On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
> >>>>> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> >>>>> scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> >>>>> else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> >>>>> entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> >>>>> or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> >>>>> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> >>>>> speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> >>>>> out of office any public official or employee, including the
> >>>>> President
> >>>>> himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To wit:
> >>>>> Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> >>>>> throats.
> >>>>> On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>> Dear Keith:  Thanks for your rational-toned reply.  My New
> >>>>>> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted.  But only those parts of it
> >>>>>> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> >>>>>> This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies, but to
> >>>>>> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, maliciously,
> >>>>>> make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to side-track
> >>>>>> my efforts.
> >>>>>> I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for fourteen
> >>>>>> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises highlighted
> >>>>>> in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts.  What
> >>>>>> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the original
> >>>>>> constitution.  Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> >>>>>> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with our
> >>>>>> Constitution.
> >>>>>> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> >>>>>> scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> >>>>>> else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> >>>>>> entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> >>>>>> or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> >>>>>> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> >>>>>> speak from personal experience that few if any other person could have
> >>>>>> had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> >>>>>> out of office any public official or employee, including the President
> >>>>>> himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of a
> >>>>>> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To wit:
> >>>>>> "1st Amendment:  No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> >>>>>> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> >>>>>> government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> >>>>>> be secular.  No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> >>>>>> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
> >>>>>> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and the
> >>>>>> right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> >>>>>> branches or departments for redress of grievances.  Citizens so
> >>>>>> petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> >>>>>> comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities who
> >>>>>> have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of
> >>>>>> the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications.  Failure
> >>>>>> to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall,
> >>>>>> on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment,
> >>>>>> especially those in management or public office�including judges and
> >>>>>> justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent
> >>>>>> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> >>>>>> addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld.  No
> >>>>>> judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above required
> >>>>>> duties, that they in any way might be compromising their objectivity
> >>>>>> or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed.
> >>>>>> Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable
> >>>>>> truthfulness in reporting.  Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> >>>>>> deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or
> >>>>>> satire�is prohibited.  Stating or implying that a particular news
> >>>>>> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> >>>>>> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> >>>>>> occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, or
> >>>>>> ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named as
> >>>>>> being authored by management; editorial comments by others that are in
> >>>>>> any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments
> >>>>>> occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would
> >>>>>> come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> >>>>>> innocuous.  No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> >>>>>> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> >>>>>> job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss of
> >>>>>> license or closure of the business.  Flagrantly editing news to
> >>>>>> promote the ideology of management is a felony.  No medium shall
> >>>>>> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> >>>>>> pending election or referendum.  Nor shall they invite others outside
> >>>>>> of the media to do so.  But factual, thorough coverage of the
> >>>>>> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
> >>>>>> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> >>>>>> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all
> >>>>>> of the referenda issues.  It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> >>>>>> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action.  No
> >>>>>> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> >>>>>> others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall
> >>>>>> be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium.  Each medium shall
> >>>>>> respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> >>>>>> medium.  Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> >>>>>> not be excused by the media response.  A medium reporting on
> >>>>>> government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment�
> >>>>>> being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> >>>>>> thoughtful dissent nor its coverage.  Every medium shall favor the
> >>>>>> truth over supposition, without parity nor bias.  False or deceptive
> >>>>>> commercial advertising is prohibited.  Deliberate use by any
> >>>>>> candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> >>>>>> campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark, since you have not said one thing positive about my efforts; and
since you try to berate me by comparing me to "bad people", that
identifies you as a socialist-communist. Bug-off, loser! — J. A. A.
—
>
On Feb 25, 11:27 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <<<<Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> the latter.>>>
>
> Funny, hitler and Qadaffi said the same thing. Fine company there.
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > Dear MJ:  You sir, are a total BUM!  What I have written describing my
> > New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> > fill several "War and Peace"-size novels.  Not a single WORD of what I
> > have written supports socialism nor communism!  I am in favor of
> > having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> > zero interaction with individual citizens.  'My' government will no
> > longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> > value-added, only.  And I have nixed having the government maintain
> > records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> > Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> > the person they failed to convict the last time.  My corrections of
> > corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> > enough to ratify my New Constitution!  Presently, the USA is a police
> > state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures.  And
> > the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate.  I've put
> > them in their place, big time!
>
> > You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher.  I do not appreciate in
> > the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> > of some kind.  Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> > not mine.  I am not playing games, here.  If you would like to get
> > back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> > two paragraphs or less.  Unless I see the words:  "I pro-capitalist
> > and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> > just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> > Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > the latter.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> > > Pity.
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote:
>
> > > >Dear Jonathan:  Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> > > >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> > > >communist.  You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA!  —
> > > >John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is
> > ever
> > > > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
>
> > > > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
>
> > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > > scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor
> > anyone
> > > > > > else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> > > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about
> > this
> > > > > > or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins
> > with
> > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > > > > > President
> > > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request
> > of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To
> > wit:
>
> > > > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > > > > > throats.
>
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  wrote:
> > > > > >> Dear Keith:  Thanks for your rational-toned reply.  My New
> > > > > >> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted.  But only those parts of
> > it
> > > > > >> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > > > > >> This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies,
> > but to
> > > > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would,
> > maliciously,
> > > > > >> make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to
> > side-track
> > > > > >> my efforts.
>
> > > > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for
> > fourteen
> > > > > >> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises
> > highlighted
> > > > > >> in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts.
> >  What
> > > > > >> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the
> > original
> > > > > >> constitution.  Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > > > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with
> > our
> > > > > >> Constitution.
>
> > > > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > >> scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor
> > anyone
> > > > > >> else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see
> > the
> > > > > >> entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about
> > this
> > > > > >> or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins
> > with
> > > > > >> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > >> speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > have
> > > > > >> had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or
> > kick
> > > > > >> out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > President
> > > > > >> himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request
> > of a
> > > > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To
> > wit:
>
> > > > > >> "1st Amendment:  No law shall be made regarding the establishment
> > of
> > > > > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > > > >> government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements
> > shall
> > > > > >> be secular.  No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > > > > >> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press
> > or
> > > > > >> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and
> > the
> > > > > >> right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > > > > >> branches or departments for redress of grievances.  Citizens so
> > > > > >> petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant,
> > timely,
> > > > > >> comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities
> > who
> > > > > >> have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient
> > aspect of
> > > > > >> the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications.
> >  Failure
> > > > > >> to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance
> > shall,
> > > > > >> on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s
> > employment,
> > > > > >> especially those in management or public office�including judges
> > and
> > > > > >> justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any
> > competent
> > > > > >> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > > > > >> addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld.  No
> > > > > >> judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above
> > required
> > > > > >> duties, that they in any way might be compromising their
> > objectivity
> > > > > >> or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well
> > informed.
> > > > > >> Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be
> > reasonable
> > > > > >> truthfulness in reporting.  Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > > > > >> deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious
> > fiction or
> > > > > >> satire�is prohibited.  Stating or implying that a particular
> > news
> > > > > >> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > > > > >> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > > > > >> occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by,
> > or
> > > > > >> ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named
> > as
> > > > > >> being authored by management; editorial comments by others that
> > are in
> > > > > >> any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by
> > comments
> > > > > >> occurring at specific times or designated locations that most
> > would
> > > > > >> come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such
> > are
> > > > > >> innocuous.  No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology
> > of
> > > > > >> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses
> > such
> > > > > >> job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss
> > of
> > > > > >> license or closure of the business.  Flagrantly editing news to
> > > > > >> promote the ideology of management is a felony.  No medium shall
> > > > > >> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > > > > >> pending election or referendum.  Nor shall they invite others
> > outside
> > > > > >> of the media to do so.  But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > > > > >> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is
> > allowed,
> > > > > >> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and
> > provided
> > > > > >> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to
> > all
> > > > > >> of the referenda issues.  It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > > > >> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action.
> >  No
> > > > > >> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Mark, one of the airheads: "A 'camel' is a horse designed in a
committee." I happen to be among the most intelligent people ever
born on this Earth. I could have gone into... politics (God forbid!)
and had my talents negated in committees and in the daily empty
RITUAL. I had seen how departed from the Constitution our government
had become, and decided that the only solution would be to make our
constitution STRONGER. Along the way, I realized that too many really
important things were being left for being defined in subsequent
laws. So, I gradually added-in items that most Americans will
recognize as affecting their daily lives. Having those things be
visible in the New Constitution, itself, will have government working
quite well without "trusting" that the House (There will be no
senate.) can write some good laws. The best way to assure that only
good laws, acceptable to the majority of Americans, will be passed, is
my having raised the minimum vote for passage to 60%. (Note: 55% is
probationary, only.) I've also denied the media access to the
capital. That will remove most of the ego component from those
wishing to be "important", because they are in the public eye all the
time. I require that House members never have held public office nor
been employed by government (other than for possible military
service). So, there will be no more... "career" politicians! And I
limit the total number of... lawyers in public office to 20%,
maximum. Restrictions on lawyers in businesses, also, is crucial to
improving the working climate in this country, so no business will
ever try to take unfair advantage of their employees nor their
customers. Read back into my thread. I really don't have time to
keep "capsuling" my document—which has been developed over a 14-year
period to benefit the majority of Americans. — John A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On Feb 25, 11:24 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My dearest Einstein.... it is misspelt on purpose... I am certainly NOT
> Anointed...
>
> Since you would like to be correct in all things... THIS IS AN INTERNET
> FORUM
>
> Definition is: An *Internet forum*, or *message board*, is an online
> discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted
> messages.
>
> What you are looking for is a self-serving BLOG as all members on a forum do
>  have the right to respond to ANYTHING as they see fit in civil tone.
>
> As to what you have done.... about twenty years to write a set of (your
> description) unfinished rules in the form of a constitution that you do want
> everyone to praise but don't want anyone to read or comment on... how Pelosi
> of you.
>
> There are reasons that documents such as you are trying to produce are done
> by committee,at least with intelligent and educated people  involved they
> are. There are reasons that every draft is sent to several people for input
> and polishing...
>
> If those reasons escape you or you are not willing for whatever reason  then
> it will die  with you.
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:41 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Anointed One:  You can't even spell your own handle.  I'm posting
> > NOT to get anyone's feed-back, but simply to inform people what I've
> > done.  Frankly, I have better things to do than to banter with
> > shallows like you.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Your response to people is:  <<<< I am NOT wishing to have your nor
> > > anyone
> > > else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > > or that>>>
>
> > > How VERY Nancy Pelosi of you.
>
> > > On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Anointed One:  If you agree with the mega pages I've written
> > > > explaining my New Constitution, I welcome you support.  But when you
> > > > simply copy what I wrote, and substitute your own pet ideas, I'm not
> > > > sure if you are for a better and tougher constitution or not.
> > > > Concisely stated replies will be appreciated.  —  John A. Armistead —
> > > > Patriot
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > > > else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > > > > or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > > > > have had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or
> > kick
> > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > President
> > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of
> > > > > a single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance."
>
> > > > > (The Anointed One wrote:) Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the
> > DEMS slammed down your throats.
>
> > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Keith:  Thanks for your rational-toned reply.  My New
> > > > > > Constitution will indeed be copyrighted.  But only those parts of
> > it
> > > > > > not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > > > > > This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies, but
> > to
> > > > > > be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, maliciously,
> > > > > > make me look bad—as part of a socialist/communist plot to
> > side-track
> > > > > > my efforts.
>
> > > > > > I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for
> > fourteen
> > > > > > years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises
> > highlighted
> > > > > > in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts.
> >  What
> > > > > > is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the
> > original
> > > > > > constitution.  Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > > > > > Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with
> > our
> > > > > > Constitution.
>
> > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > > scarcely been commented on.  I am NOT wishing to have your nor
> > anyone
> > > > > > else's feedback on what I have written!  Most would love to see the
> > > > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about
> > this
> > > > > > or that.  From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins
> > with
> > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > have
> > > > > > had.  That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > President
> > > > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request
> > of a
> > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance.   To
> > wit:
>
> > > > > > "1st Amendment:  No law shall be made regarding the establishment
> > of
> > > > > > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > > > > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements
> > shall
> > > > > > be secular.  No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > > > > > freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
> > > > > > other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and
> > the
> > > > > > right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > > > > > branches or departments for redress of grievances.  Citizens so
> > > > > > petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> > > > > > comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities
> > who
> > > > > > have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect
> > of
> > > > > > the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications.
> >  Failure
> > > > > > to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance
> > shall,
> > > > > > on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one's employment,
> > > > > > especially those in management or public office—including judges
> > and
> > > > > > justices—who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any
> > competent
> > > > > > Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > > > > > addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld.  No
> > > > > > judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above
> > required
> > > > > > duties, that they in any way might be compromising their
> > objectivity
> > > > > > or fairness in court; justice be not "blind", but well informed.
> > > > > > Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be
> > reasonable
> > > > > > truthfulness in reporting.  Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > > > > > deliberate omission of the truth—except in cases of obvious fiction
> > or
> > > > > > satire—is prohibited.  Stating or implying that a particular news
> > > > > > medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > > > > > prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > > > > > occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by,
> > or
> > > > > > ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named
> > as
> > > > > > being authored by management; editorial comments by others that are
> > in
> > > > > > any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments
> > > > > > occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would
> > > > > > come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such
> > are
> > > > > > innocuous.  No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology
> > of
> > > > > > its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses
> > such
> > > > > > job to hawk their personal political preferences—at risk of loss of
> > > > > > license or closure of the business.  Flagrantly editing news to
> > > > > > promote the ideology of management is a felony.  No medium shall
> > > > > > analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > > > > > pending election or referendum.  Nor shall they invite others
> > outside
> > > > > > of the media to do so.  But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > > > > > candidates or referenda issues—on an as occurs basis—is allowed,
> > > > > > provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> > > > > > the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to
> > all
> > > > > > of the referenda issues.  It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > > > > truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action.
> >  No
> > > > > > medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > > > > > others, but if a person is harmed by the medium's content, they
> > shall
> > > > > > be allowed to reply—without editing—in that medium.  Each medium
> > shall
> > > > > > respond to breaking news without considering the response of any
> > other
> > > > > > medium.  Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage
> > shall
> > > > > > not be excused by the media response.  A medium reporting on
> > > > > > government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with
> > detachment—
> > > > > > being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > > > > > thoughtful dissent nor its coverage.  Every medium shall favor the
> > > > > > truth over supposition, without parity nor bias.  False or
> > deceptive
> > > > > > commercial advertising is prohibited.  Deliberate use by any
> > > > > > candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or
> > deceptive
> > > > > > campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > > > > > felony.  No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > > > > > interest group(s)
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Truth:

This is an excerpt from wikipedia called second bill of rights -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights - ithink i posted
it before but here it is again.

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D.
Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State
of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt
suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now
implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that
the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of
Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of
happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of
rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security
Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American
security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far
these and similar rights had been carried into practice.

end of excerpt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

The living wage thing is the main thing, everything else will fall
into place. I callit ungainful employment - that is the main thing
keeping us from a heavenly earth. Why do we inflict oppresive wages on
each other - we need to or do we want to?

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not
covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly
comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy {employee} as
thyself. 10Love worketh no ill to his {employees}: therefore love is
the fulfilling of the law. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:9-11&version=KJV

And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness
against ... those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow,
and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right,
and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=oppres%20hireling&version1=9&searchtype=all

On Feb 23, 9:03 pm, robert prezioso <ragprezi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey wes
>
>  I was the one who wrote about socialism in this country . I was not saying
> that I I agree with it or want I am say it is being forced on us . I read
> most what is written on this site and see that nothing that can be said to
> these people will wake them up.This counrty has been taken over by our
> government and until all these bullshit artist are ready to help a cause and
> start a new Party  that will truly give back the government back to the
> people they will alway grip and complian and pull quotes out of books that
> do not even relate to what is happening in this country today. In saying
> that this does not mean the Tea Party which is a danger to all because they
> are just replace idiot with other idiot they are really not doing any real
> good.They are not changing  terms or trying to establish a way to fire the
> these "things" put into office that do not do the peoples bidding  but take
> their monies  and the bribe and they all do, I find it hard to respect
> anybody who would consider our government fair and just to its people, They
> create the debt but we have to pay it back in every tax in every day life .
> Did you know you pay about 30to 35 cents per dollar you earn on tax weather
> it be local ,state, federal, food , gas , beverage , sale , . So when you
> read about capitalism just see who it is working for and you will see it is
> the government and the rich not the true backbone of the country . Oh and
> owning a gun has nothing to do with capitalism to whoever wrote idiotic
> message. Read your history our forefather fought for that right . They also
> stood tall for the people unlike what we have today.
>
> Sincerely
>
> bob Prezioso
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Wes <wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought your post said wealth insurance for a second.
>
> > i tried to click yuor site but its not published yet
>
> > Please look over this
> >https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1PmzTwn5vcxdSs8587kRvqJLRXHrR...
> > and give me some thoughts.
>
> > On Feb 19, 8:45 pm, robert prezioso <ragprezi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey wes
> > > Capitalism is now only for the top of the chain here is a small article
> > on
> > > how I feel this country has been given over to the rich by the government
> > .
>
> > > *How far are we from becoming a nation force to live in a socialist
> > > government?*
>
> > > Think about what is happening in this country , we the people are going
> > > broke and the government wants to force more taxes and charge us if we do
> > > not have health care .  That seems to take freedom of choice away from
> > the
> > > people who are suppose to be in charge of the government. Most  communist
> > > societies started this way Russia,  Cuba ,Venezuela in other words the
> > > government is taking control of what we should be in control *Our Lives.*
>
> > > * *
> > > This did no begin with this administration but it is being taken farther
> > in
> > > this Administration than ever before. We as Americans are allowing it . I
> > > tell you now if we do not stop what they are doing now all the rights our
> > > fore father have fought for are going to disappear faster than you
> > > thing.  Voting
> > > almost means nothing now pretty soon it will mean nothing at all .We as a
> > > people not separate national colors and creed must come together and form
> > a
> > > new political party to fight the coming storm of political take over. I
> > > really hope you see the plight this government has put the people in. The
> > > politicians are no longer True Americans they are traitors to the
> > *Original
> > > Constitution of the United States Of America .   Please leave comment
> >  *
> > > * Please if you get a chance go on this sight and see if you agree  with
> > > some of the things I have to say **
> >http://nownationalorgazationofthewolf.weebly.com/*
>
> > > * *
>
> > > The Author  Bob Prezioso
>
> > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Wes <wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their
> > > > > private property without outside interference.
>
> > > > You're not free to kill with a gun or a knife even though you may have
> > > > a right to keep and bear it.
>
> > > > > Who determines what is 'good' and what is 'wrong'?
> > > > >  From WHENCE is such derived?
>
> > > > The people and/or the gov't decides right and wrong (would you have it
> > > > any other way)? I would say the Bible is the main source when
> > > > determining right and wrong but many don't agree.
>
> > > > > People wanting to dictate what others do with their property AND/OR
> > > > > interfere with their use of said property ... using FORCE to
> > > > > accomplish such *IS* socialism.
>
> > > > Right socialism and capitalism are the same thing. You can take your
> > > > property to mars and do as you please there but if you want to live
> > > > under Team America you're going to do as we say. How's that sound?
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 6:45 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Socialism and Capitalism are the same thing only the volume is
> > turned
> > > > > >up more on one side and less on the other.
>
> > > > > Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their
> > > > > private property without outside interference.
>
> > > > > >Gov't's job is to
> > > > > >facilitate good and punish wrong.
>
> > > > > Who determines what is 'good' and what is 'wrong'?
> > > > >  From WHENCE is such derived?
>
> > > > > >Gov't should see to it that people
> > > > > >can win for their own team but punish them if they don't provide for
> > > > > >their own team members because that leads to Socialism which doesn't
> > > > > >work.
>
> > > > > People wanting to dictate what others do with their property AND/OR
> > > > > interfere with their use of said property ... using FORCE to
> > > > > accomplish such *IS* socialism.
>
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from
> > > > > interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the
> > > > > entire management of production and distribution to the
> > > > > government.  Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle
> > > > > way. -- Ludwig von Mises
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > <http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and 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.