Mark: The only ones being restricted are employees of government, public officials, and 100% of those working in the media. Nothing about my Constitution restricts the free speech of the man-on-the- street! Not too long ago, there was a radical Hispanic school teacher in California teaching his students that Arizona's immigration law should be ignored. Since that teacher is a government employee (the states are included), as soon as he expressed his personal opinions to his students, he was guilty of violating the Constitution and would immediately be fired from his job. The present state of being in this country is that those with government jobs are part of a ruling class. HA! When that unconstitutional WI teachers union opened their mouths in public forum, every single one of them would be out of a job! If people think that power is to be found by banding together in groups and fighting it out, think again! My New Constitution will criminalize any group leaders seeking power above and beyond what my New Constitution guarantees. And doing that, flagrantly, is treason! Group-against-group bickering will finally cease to exist in this country, beginning with my outlawing of political parties! — J. A. A. —
> On Apr 10, 5:31 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Einstein, > > Regardless of ANY law or law making body's intent; the more laws and the > more intrusion into the life of people the restricted and thus the more > enslaved they become. Your Constitution and its "built in" penal aspect and > outright restriction on free speech is the perfect example. > > Just what part of "We the People" at the beginning of the present > Constitution do you Americans NOT get. It flatly lays the responsibility for > EVERYTHING that Government does at your feet. Exactly why do you think the > amendments that allow you to be armed and talking on the street corner do > you most obviously NOT get ?? Not only do you not get it you allow > Government to erode it at every turn. > > That which is happening to your nation is not the fault of your Constitution > it IS the direct fault of every citizen that allows it. > > As to your ability to deal outside your borders with me ... good luck with > that. As to your Constitution.... We have our own and yours does NOT apply. > > Manchurian Candidate. That is someone who is anti-America who manages > > > > > > > > > to get elected President. He has an aunt who was there when he was > > born in Kenya. But there are no doctor's or nurses who can be found > > who were there when he was, purportedly, born in Hawaii. Where is the > > birth certificate with a footprint to confirm where Obama was born? > > The economic harm that man has done to the USA qualifies him to get > > capital punishment. But it is his failing to respect his Oath of > > Office and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which is > > immediately treason. Socialism and communism, which Obama's policies > > embrace, is the anti-thesis of a republic or democracy. In short, > > Obama wishes to enslave the 55% of good, hard-working Americans so > > that the 45% of liberal good-for-nothings can get free lunches and > > abortions. > > > Your working for Google cannot suspend my free speech rights. My New > > Constitution says: "A Citizen’s constitutional rights supersede any > > intra-business regulations, including medical protocol." — J. A. > > Armistead — Patriot > > > On Apr 9, 12:18 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Einstein, > > > > First: I did NOT threaten. I DID. > > > Second: Whether the present or future Constitution is in place I am > > > not subject to it or US regulation. > > > Third: you openly threatened a sitting head of state... It is > > > absolutely against the law to do so in your country. The first > > > amendment does not give you that prerogative. > > > > The next such offense will be forwarded to the proper authorities. > > > This is NOT a threat, it is a fact. > > > > On Apr 8, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jonathan: Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a > > > > "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities > > > > vote. The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles > > > > than the man-on-the-street. Of course, that shift of power runs > > > > counter to principles of fair play and democracy. The 1st Amendment > > > > says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other > > > > medium". Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is > > > > allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I > > > > correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google > > > > didn't FIRE Mark, post haste! — J. A. A. — > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:44 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for > > > > > any medium to express their personal political biases. > > > > > > Does that mean my sister will no longer be allowed to work for Kenny > > > > > Kingston? > > > > > > On 04/05/2011 11:28 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > Folks: Pushing for socialism or communism in a Republic or > > Democracy > > > > > > is the same as trying to overthrow the government. There is no > > higher > > > > > > crime than that! I've never said that "anyone" who speaks freely > > is > > > > > > an outlaw. Only those like Mark, alias "The Annointed (sic) One" > > who > > > > > > attack me�the most patriotic and pro civil liberties person in > > the USA� > > > > > > is clearly an outlaw. Free speech IS allowed for all of those not > > > > > > employed by government and not being paid by any medium. Working > > as a > > > > > > 'moderator' for Google gives the likes of Mark an advantage of > > > > > > exposure. My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for > > > > > > any medium to express their personal political biases. There can > > be > > > > > > no exceptions if the USA is to return the control of government to > > the > > > > > > People, and away from the elitist media and elitist politicians > > which > > > > > > the media made to be elitist in the first place. � John A. > > Armistead > > > > > > � Patriot > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Mark<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Stalinesque...... Your "pegging" ANYONE that speaks freely as an > > "outlaw" is > > > > > >> absolutely Stalinesque. > > > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, NoEinstein< > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>> Jonathan: My rationality for pegging you an outlaw and a traitor > > > > > >>> should be evident to anyone who has read my pro-people New > > > > > >>> Constitution that I've regularly detailed in Sections. Anyone, > > like > > > > > >>> you, who has a holier-than-thou tone doesn't have the value > > system to > > > > > >>> judge anything. Be content with looking things up in your > > elementary > > > > > >>> school dictionary, Jonathan. That's all the discourse you'll > > ever > > > > > >>> get. � J. A. A. � > > > > > >>> On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> John, > > > > > >>>> If you truly believe I have "no virtues worthy of... being > > allowed to > > > > > >>>> continue to live on this Earth," why don't you stop by sometime > > and we > > > > > >>>> can discuss this in person. > > > > > >>>> As for my being "an outlaw to humanity," how do you believe that > > is > > > > > >>>> possible? > > > > > >>>> *OUTLAW,* n. A person excluded from the benefit of the law, > > or > > > > > >>>> deprived of its protection. > > > > > >>>> *HUMANITY*, n. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is > > > > > >>>> distinguished from other beings. > > > > > >>>> How did you determine that humanity is law? > > > > > >>>> On 04/01/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > >>>>> I can't be put on the defensive regarding the most > > highly-motivated, > > > > > >>>>> for-the-people document ever written. Jonathan, the socialist- > > > > > >>>>> communist, is bent on destroying the USA. He has no virtues > > worthy of > > > > > >>>>> his being allowed to continue to live on this Earth. He is an > > outlaw > > > > > >>>>> to humanity, along with Mark and MJ. I'm amazed that Keith > > can't see > > > > > >>>>> what rascals he purports to understand and tolerate! � J. A. > > > > > >>>>> Armistead � Patriot > > > > > >>>>> On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley< > > [email protected]> > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> John, > > > > > >>>>>> The problem is you don't defend your document. If you were to > > defend > > > > > >>> it, > > > > > >>>>>> you would have to engage in dialogue. Instead, you resort to > > personal > > > > > >>>>>> attacks against those who pose questions - failing in every > > instance > > > > > >>>>>> thus far to answer any posed questions. You are nothing more > > than a > > > > > >>>>>> hypocrite. > > > > > >>>>>> On 03/29/2011 09:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> Jonathan: You, like so many in the groups, seek to elevate > > your non- > > > > > >>>>>>> existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual > > and > > > > > >>>>>>> creative superiors. As required by the original > > Constitution, I > > > > > >>>>>>> only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the > > attacks > > > > > >>>>>>> of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark. My time would be > > better spent > > > > > >>>>>>> writing more essays. � J. A. A. � > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley< > > [email protected]> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> John, > > > > > >>>>>>>> Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR > > New > > > > > >>>>>>>> Constitution being criticized. > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Jonathan: For your information, no socialist-communist > > will ever > > > > > >>> get > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a chance to serve in, or be employed by government. The > > "input" > > > > > >>> that > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like > > you. > > > > > >>> � J. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> A. A. � > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley< > > [email protected]> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling > > rather > > > > > >>> than > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> engage in meaningful dialog. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving > > of a > > > > > >>> reply. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> � J. A. A. � > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley< > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> John, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In > > the > > > > > >>> case of > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both > > parties to > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary > > > > > >>> interaction. That > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is how things should be. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have > > been > > > > > >>> treated > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> unfairly by government or by business they can sue in > > civil > > > > > >>> court and > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> let the jury > > ... > > 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.
