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 referendum, shall, retroactively, be guilty of a felony(s). (3.) The news media standards required, herein, as relates to coverage concerning this document, shall, following ratification of the New Constitution by the People, be retroactively applied to any news medium or person therein— including the full punishments relating thereto—for non compliance with the standards. Likewise, any judge or justice acting counter to this New Constitution regarding news coverage issues or any part of the ratification process shall be held fully accountable. The macro- will of the Citizens shall be Supreme!" — John A. Armistead — Patriot > On Feb 20, 12:54 pm, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Afternoon John, > > Like Jonathan, Michael, and Mark, I too would like to see your New > Constitution that you ave talked about for at least several years. > > Yes, I realize that you have posted various parts and pieces of this > document, but why not post the damn thing, for us to read and try to > understand? > > Why the hesitation? Are you concerned about some sort of copyright > infringement? If that is the case, then I can understand.....To a degree, > and you need only state that this is the cause of your hesitation. > > Although I disagree with Michael (MJ) on a number of occasions, I will say > that he is a well thought, well meaning and logical gentleman and not one > who is apt to hurl insult or personal attacks on the board. > > Just a thought, but obviously we'd love to see your work! > > KeithInTampa (Today) > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:30 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks: The following was prompted by a direct email to me. (See > > below.) I'd like to share it with you. — John A. Armistead — > > Patriot > > > 02/19/11 > > > Dear Robert (Prezioso): > > > My first essay 'title-set" on Political Forum was: "Start the > > Revolution! Government is out-of-touch with the People!" Apparently, > > even the concept of there being a revolution tired most people out. > > They want others to fight their battles for them—even while this > > country is going-down-the-tubes. > > > The absolute shortest way to correct our broke government and corrupt > > institutions is by ratifying my STRONG New Constitution. It's true > > that IF our elected officials had sincerely adhered to the ideals of > > the Founding Fathers, that are expressed in the original Constitution, > > we wouldn't have many of today's problems. Unfortunately, Congress > > and the White House pay lip-service to the Constitution while ignoring > > most of it, most of the time. They are our elected dictators, not our > > elected representatives. > > > Our bad government is mostly just a huge personnel problem. The bad > > personnel began making big promises to the lazy minorities in society > > in order to get enough votes to keep getting elected. It's easy to > > fault the "fat cats" when the lazy outnumber the former a hundred to > > one. > > > Please understand that I have my own agendas which prevent me from > > being an active supporter of your "Save the Country" effort. If > > enough people, like you, will start talking about straightening out > > government, the powers-that-be will come tumbling down. I'll capsule > > your long reply so that others can read it, too. > > > Sincerely, — John A. Armistead — Patriot > > > __________ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: robert prezioso > > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 1:23 AM > > Subject: I agree there is no answer for that Constitution. > > > You seem to realize that our government has over-stepped its rights > > over the people of this country. As I look at it, the way this > > happened is we are too worried about who is getting what from the > > government. On the one hand—the government hand—it keeps us separated > > so we may not be able to protect ourselves from the attacks on us > > every day by the political machines. Do Not Get Me Wrong! I Love > > This Great Country, and I did service the military. But I feel that > > the government has been taken away from the people and is now only for > > themselves. Just look at what they get paid for doing nothing. They > > don't even work all year, and the expenses are all on us. Every rep. > > and sen. gets paid from $150,000 to almost $200,000 a year for doing > > things that we would be put in jail for. > > > If you get a chance, go to my free site. Hey, everybody has to rant > > and vent when it comes to the government. I want to start a new > > political party to take the government back for the people and restore > > the original constitution of the United States which truly gave us the > > power, and where the words: "We The People" mean something. The link, > > below, is the site. Please email any comments that could help me > > improve the content of my site. You seem to be one of the more down- > > to-reality people that I have encountered so far in this forum. > > Please check this out at: > >http://nownationalorgazationofthewolf.weebly.com/ > > > Thanks for reading, even if you do not go to the site. > > > Bob Prezioso > > > On Feb 13, 11:26 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Love thy neighbor, or love thy criminals. > > > > Polls taken throughout Barack Obama’s tenure as our elected dictator > > > show that a consistent 40% to 45% think he is doing OK as… President. > > > That contrasts with as few as 16% of Americans who approve of Obama’s > > > handling of the US economy. Why isn’t there a parallel between those > > > two polling questions? Can one’s rating as President not take into > > > account both overall performance and specific performance? > > > > In 2004 I had heard glowing reports of an attractive Black man from > > > Chicago who, supposedly, was delivering rousing speeches. So, I made > > > it a point to listen when Obama addressed the Democratic Convention > > > that year. My reaction wasn’t favorable. The words of the speech > > > were OK, but Obama was stony-faced and emotionless. He talked in a > > > modified monotone—dropping his voice at the end of sentences as though > > > his energy had drained out. The most noticeable aspect of his > > > bearing, as a speaker, was the regularity with which he turned his > > > head from side to side while reading teleprompters. Though he was > > > articulate sounding, Obama didn’t seem to be enjoying the message he > > > was delivering. Where there is real passion, usually there are > > > changes in speaking tone, changes in body language, and apt > > > gesturing. Obama showed none of those. Whoever that ‘attractive > > > Black man from Chicago’ was, he was keeping the true identity of the > > > speaker hidden from public view. That fact made me feel very uneasy, > > > mostly, because other people, apparently, were only seeing the > > > slender, suave and handsome man, and not seeing the likely psychosis > > > lurking below that man’s surface. > > > > Bill Kristol of the ‘Weekly Standard’, a supposed conservative > > > magazine, is a regular ‘guest contributor’ on Fox News. On Chris > > > Wallace’s show, Sunday, Kristol was his usual smiley self while he > > > defended not firing policemen and librarians as part of needed budget > > > cuts. Though I’ve never read a page of that magazine, I could > > > immediately tell that Kristol is a liberal. His cast-in-stone smile > > > also shows him to be a phony of the worst kind. When I was a kid, my > > > father, who was a professional portrait photographer, told me that men > > > don’t smile ‘naturally’, without being coaxed. I’ve observed that men > > > who are not trustworthy will smile excessively to created the opposite > > > illusion. > > > > Bill O’Reilly smiles and chuckles his way though most of his shows. > > > After interviewing Obama the night of the Super Bowl, O’Reilly said > > > that Obama—who was all toothy-smiles the entire interview—is a > > > friendly and likable man (gag… gag…). O’Reilly is this liberal > > > Harvard luck-out with a moron’s IQ telling his like-minded viewers > > > that THE most divisive and hurtful man to the country in US history > > > is… likable. Regularly doing that on national TV, as O’Reilly does, > > > is, I believe, aiding and abetting treason. For that reason, Bill > > > O’Reilly should hang for treason right along side his idol, Obama, as > > > part of the cleansing to rid corrupt socialist conspirators from our > > > midst. > > > > This week, Ron Paul got the highest number of straw votes for > > > President at the CPAC convention. Three years ago Paul could have > > > become President simply by saying these words: “The USA is broke > > > financially. And the Federal Government is broke morally. No one in > > > Washington considers the costs and the negative effects of the > > > legislation being passed. With every new law, our civil liberties go > > > down, and our share of the national debt goes… up. A logical solution > > > to our failed government is to ratify a stronger New Constitution. > > > The object of such should be to, once again, put the People in charge > > > of government, rather than allowing government to keep thinking it is > > > in charge of the People. To further that objective, I hereby RESIGN > > > my House Seat in order to work for a better America by way of a New > > > Constitution of the United States of America. I urge all patriots who > > > agree with me to rally to that cause!” > > > > But Ron Paul shrank back into obscurity amid the empty ritual of the > > > Capital after saying, “Elections are for the short term. A Revolution > > > will take longer.” Ron Paul doesn’t have… the (New) Constitution to > > > lead a Revolution. But I do! > > > > Two other prominent political or media figures who are clear PHONIES > > > are former Governor Mike Huckabee and Former Governor Mitt Romney. > > > Both of those are smile-aholics. “One glance at Huckabee’s smile > > > could give dentists tooth decay!” No man who fakes playing a guitar > > > on each of his sweet, sweet shows has the honesty and integrity to be > > > a janitor at any church, let alone President of the USA. > > > > Romney showed his true colors after the McCain-Palin ticket was > > > finalized. Instead of smiles, I detected POISON in Romney’s bearing > > > and in his remarks. In my opinion, the ‘dual personality’ of that man > > > disqualifies him to ever be President. This country can’t ‘take’ two > > > phony Presidents in a row! Though I never approved of George Bush > > > invading Iraq, he was one of our more what-you-see-is what-you-get > > > presidents. We should look for that kind of honesty in future > > > presidents! > > > > Of the ‘possibles’ for President, Newt Gingrich has many plusses. The > > > man is smart and well-informed. There > > ... > > 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.
