I hold three passports and love every one of my countries.... On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Ashley < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[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 » > > > -- > 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 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. > -- *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.
