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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 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 > > ... > > 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.
