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 <[email protected]> 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! � > > John A. Armistead � Patriot > > On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > 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<[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 > > ... > > 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.
