Jonathan: I've got a lot of irons-in-the-fire. Playing-the-author would leave time for little else. I've noticed that Ohio Gov. John Kasich is saying: "Prosperity can cure a lot of ills." I'm more interested in improving the world than in judging a book by the words of others. Those who read my many essays know I'm an accomplished writer without needing any references! — John A. Armistead — Patriot > On Mar 13, 3:19 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]> > > 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]> 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]>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]> > >>>>> 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]> 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 > > ... > > 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.
