Hey Jonathan! Send the link! I might opt to buy it....I am looking for some reading material, on some upcoming (long assed) flights that I see I will be enduring here soon.....
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley < [email protected]> wrote: > Has anyone besides Mark and myself noticed that John (a.k.a. NoEinstein) > never answers a single question posed to him? When all he can do is cut and > paste "the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply," does he actually > think anyone will buy HIS New Book? > > (HIS New Book is not the title of his new book. That's just me poking fun > at John.) > > HIS New Book was published by Outskirts Press (a business that helps folks > self-publish) in September 2010. It is available through Amazon.com. > However, I was not enticed into making a purchase simply because "There are > no customer reviews yet." So, I went to the Barnes & Noble website, which > allows folks to rate books on a scale of 1 to 5. It has no ratings for the > book. > > One would think that a book that has been out close to six months would > have had at least one person post a review - even if it were a negative > review. > > I hope John didn't purchase too many copies of HIS New Book! > > > On 03/13/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. > — J. A. A. — > > On Mar 11, 5:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Re: "Unless one understands the hundreds of problems solved, most don't > have the smarts to realize how much more personal liberty and how much > less government control there will be that would otherwise have affected > most Americans." > > John, > > Perhaps a definition of liberty is needed for your perusal. From > Webster's 1828 dictionary: > > *LIB''ERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.] > > 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the > body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not > confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or > controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to > restrain his actions or volitions. > > How does one gain liberty from YOUR New Constitution? From what little > you have provided, for every problem YOUR New Constitution claims to > solve, YOUR New Constitution creates ten new problems. > > On 03/11/2011 12:46 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mark: Your pet one-page constitution was unknown to me when I > wrote my New Constitution�which is based on and expanded from, the > original. So, don't fault me for not following your lead. At no time > is the input of any outsider, like you, being sought to... "evaluate" > what I have done. Most of the content was for solving very specific > governmental problems highlighted in the news. Unless one understands > the hundreds of problems solved, most don't have the smarts to realize > how much more personal liberty and how much less government control > there will be that would otherwise have affected most Americans. Even > YOU will be a beneficiary! � J. A. Armistead � > On Mar 11, 9:34 am, Mark<[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Section 1, 2& 3: States shall recognize other states� public acts, > > records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more > strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the > states having laws governing such. > > THERE GOES MY STATES RIGHT TO THE DEATH PENALTY AND LIFE IN PRISON FOR > REPEAT OFFENDER PEDOPHILES... > > English, that is grammatically > > written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and > shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse. Laws, > documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written > concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average > people, > > JUST WHAT IS "AVERAGE"... DEFINE "LEGALESE".... DOES THAT MEAN (IT CERTAINLY > IMPLIES) THAT ANY "OFFICIAL" LANGUAGE MUST BE IN A FORM THAT WOULD ALLOW > IDIOTS AND DROPOUTS TO UNDERSTAND..(EBONICS).. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT ANYONE > WITH AN EDUCATION COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT. > > or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed. > > Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages > in civil court. > > EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONFUSING ABOUT A THOUSAND YEAR OLD LANGUAGE?? > > No person shall be punished for violations of laws > > that: aren�t common knowledge; > > SO IF I CLAIM THAT I DID NOT KNOW THAT KILLING UNCLE JOE WAS "ILLEGAL" I > CAN'T BE PROSECUTED. > > disagree with the macro moral consensus > > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first > year and passed by less than 60% of the House. > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:56 AM, NoEinstein<[email protected]> > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Jonathan, a socialist-communist masquerading as a conservative, is > undeserving of being replied to. � J. A. A. � > On Mar 10, 9:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It is so sad that you spent 14 years writing this incoherent statist > hodge-podge. > On 03/10/2011 06:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > Folks: About 1/3rd of my New Constitution relates to straightening- > out the Judiciary. Here, in sequence, is... > " Article IV: > Section 1, 2& 3: States shall recognize other states� public acts, > records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more > strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the > states having laws governing such. English, that is grammatically > written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and > shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse. Laws, > documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written > concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average > people, or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed. > Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages > in civil court. No person shall be punished for violations of laws > that: aren�t common knowledge; disagree with the macro moral > > consensus > > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first > year and passed by less than 60% of the House. > Citizens in any state are entitled to the same privileges and > immunities as the Citizens of the several states. Anyone charged with > treason or other crime in any state who flees to another state, shall, > on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, > be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction in > such crime. No imprison-ment, slavery, nor involuntary servitude� > except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been > duly convicted�shall exist within the United States or any place > subject to its jurisdiction. > The House may create new states if such aren�t within the > jurisdiction of another state that dissents, and aren�t formed by > joining two or more dissenting states or parts thereof. The House can > make rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the > United States. The New Constitution shall not prejudice claims of the > USA or a particular state, and shall guarantee to each state in the > union a government that is a democracy or a republic, and shall > protect states against invasion. Upon request by the legislature or > the executive of a state (when the legislature cannot be convened), > the United States shall protect such state from domestic violence." > � John A. Armistead � Patriot > On Mar 6, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Keith in Koln: I lived in Charlotte for over two decades. My > father, in his childhood, lived in Tarpon Springs. One of my most > frightening times was driving over the Tampa Bay bridge. The > "starting point" for me in rewriting the constitution was to correct > the rampant injustices in our courts, and to allay our (You have to > experience it to know it.) police state. As happened with O. J., the > police target who they want to convict whether they are guilty or > not. The police are especially unfair to Blacks. I make it a felony > for any prosecutor to be overly zealous to convict someone who is > latter proved to be innocent. At every turn, justice demands that the > presumption of innocence be there throughout the trial until the jury > has reached a unanimous decision for guilt. Never again will there be > the converse requirement for a unanimous decision of innocence... *** > Only one of twelve jury members is required to find someone not > guilty. The latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended! > I'm flattered that someone with a Law background, like you, has said > anything favorable about my essays or my daily battles with others. > Here is the entire Article III relating to the Justice System: > "Article III: > Section 1: The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and > such inferior courts as the House establishes. Its major duty is to > interpret laws. It has no power to command enforcement of any of its > rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt > laws. Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New > Constitution. They shall perform their duties as individuals, never > as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor > from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of > such. Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal > executive or legislative office. The President shall nominate new > justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on > good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years. The President, > or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any > nominee. Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect, > high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable > nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office. Such > shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments, > yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly. They shall > make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution�never on > their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel > shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of > seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters > nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices aren�t > royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently > superior to public macro-consensus. They shall not be chambered > lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress > in a style that differentiates them from the People. They shall not > socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the > Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall > > .. > > read more » > > > -- > Q: What do you call 1,000 Republican politicians chained together with > 1,000 Democrat politicians at the bottom of the ocean? A: A good start. > > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity > Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> > > -- > 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/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and 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.
