Folks: Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 2, 1:29 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > You wrote: > > *> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has to > be!* > > It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of a dictator. > As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," let us look > at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith. > > *> 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.* > > 1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New Constitution > already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, why are > these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution? > > 2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is "peaceful"? A > Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic? > > 3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, processes, > slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"? > > 4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic from > influencing your secular government? > > 4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, > and disbursements" need be secular? > * > > No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of > speech; * > > You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared > "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall > be secular." > > *> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium;* > > 1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is being "fair > and pro-democracy"? > > 2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other medium" to > be"pro-democracy"?Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep > deciding on what to have for dinner. > > *> 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.* > > It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st Amendment of our > current Constitution in tact. > > *> 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.* > > 1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, relevant, > timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"? > > 2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" authority? > > 3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have thoroughly > read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or > requests for directions or clarifications"? > > I am having too much fun to continue. > > Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack constructs > such as...* > > Rule of construction* > > If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an official has > a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise of a power, > the presumption shall be that the official does not have the power, > or conversely, that the person has the immunity. > > *Access to grand jury, appointment of prosecutors* > > No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to a randomly > selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return an indictment > or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to prosecute > the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has jurisdiction, > and whether any official shall have official immunity from suit. > > The above constructs come from Jon Roland of the Constitution > Society.http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm > > On 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has > > to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things can be left > > going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. There are > > three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) The horrible > > and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, elitist and > > controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated > > governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number (2.) is > > responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media has to be a > > top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen very quickly > > following the ratification of my New Constitution. But fixing the > > media will require monitoring what gets said and done and imprisoning > > errant individuals, or shutting down any media not conforming to the > > very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit: > > > "Bill of Rights and Amendments: > > > 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." > > > And ... "It shall be a felony for any government official or employee, > > or any celebrity or media idol�past or present�to publicly endorse or > > campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or job. > > Exhibiting ideological bias in a job terminates the employment. > > Candidates for public office shall be disqualified for soliciting new > > voter registrants; and no campaign shall aid or organize the > > transportation of voters to the polls. > > > Keith, I FIX the media problems, not simply cross-my-fingers and hope > > the problems go away. I say: If something is BROKE, fix it! Time > > and again, that's what my New Constitution does! � John A. Armistead > > � Patriot > > On Mar 2, 4:25 am, KeithInSeoul <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A couple of days ago, John Armistead wrote this: > > >> *"When TV first started, everything was live. Reporters went where the > >> news > >> was > > ... > > 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.
