Jonathan: You should move to Alaska and build yourself a log cabin in the wilderness. Since you would be living by your own hand, you would have nothing to be taxed, and thus should be happy. The POWER in my New Constitution is revealed only by having a problem, then reading my document and realizing that the solution to that problem is spelled- out! Frequently, the answers are found on several non-contiguous pages. But anyone who can read will see that they are protected. For example: Though the words "speeding ticket" are never used, I can guarantee you that no municipality in the country will ever pull over anyone for a victimless crime. My New Constitution prohibits having any "fines" go to the government. So, there is no motive for pulling anyone over, since none of that fine can go to defray the cost of government. Fines can be used for helping groups like United Way, however. If the police pull you over, it is they who will be most in jeopardy of getting fired or jailed if they aren't deferential to you. And no person is required to show their “ID” to anyone. The police can’t, on a whim, stop anyone and ask to see “your papers” like Nazis did in Germany. They must be respectful of the people, unless someone is known (beyond reasonable doubt) to have committed some crime. Then, and only then can the police play their game of cops and robbers. — J. A. A. — > On Apr 20, 12:31 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > As usual, I find several problem with what you wrote. > > 1) YOUR New Constitution is so convoluted that those who gained power > under it would be using it for a doormat within months of its passage. > (That point is mute, however, since YOUR New Constitution will NEVER > gain acceptance.) > > 2) Any form of government that requires me -- through taxation (e.g., > theft) -- to perpetuate its existence is unacceptable. > > 3) Civil liberties are privileges that are granted. That is in direct > opposition to freedom. Freedom is "a state of exemption from the power > or control of another." If a government exists, those living under its > dictates (however benevolent they may appear), are never free. Under any > form of government, freedom is always illegal. > > 4) Government is "social engineering." > > On 04/20/2011 01:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Jonathan: I read your self description of your being an > > anarchist. Is that why you dislike having a New Constitution that > > actually tells government what it can and cannot do? The very best > > and most efficient government would be a wise, benevolent > > dictatorship. But that would end when the dictator died. Government > > under my New Constitution is mandated to be run efficiently. And > > "social engineering" is banned. You should be on my side, because my > > New Constitution will have civil liberties that are the maximum, and > > costs that are approaching the minimum. That means all Americans will > > get to keep most of their hard-earned money! Would you rather have > > Democrats stealing your money? Then, rally behind my save-the-USA > > document! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > > On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websites based > >> on "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your > >> credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expression > >> means. > > >> That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the > >> USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems > >> ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull off this > >> tremendous task? > > >> On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear Mark: I own Google stock. It's an American multinational > >>> Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California. Google > >>> World shows the new complex quite well. In many ways you are very > >>> naive. Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the > >>> noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit > >>> TREASON every day of their existence. Would you put on moderation > >>> someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed? > >>> Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill > >>> their citizens? Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have > >>> committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs > >>> resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies. He has caused > >>> more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who > >>> ever lived, including Hitler. > >>> Treason is a recognized capital offense. Those in our government and > >>> in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested, > >>> tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for > >>> giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Keith suggested that you, > >>> Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive". He's viewed > >>> you all in a favorable light, before. As for me, I suspect you are so > >>> screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a > >>> better government. That means you have schizophrenia. Get some couch- > >>> time, Mark. You need it! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Einstein, > >>>> Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or > >>>> your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard > >>>> message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It > >>>> originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law. > >>>> Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the > >>>> responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s). > >>>> On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Dear Keith: I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in > >>>>> those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews > >>>>> are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such > >>>>> nice people. Israel should become a training place for successful > >>>>> capitalism. Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims > >>>>> feel. > >>>>> Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA > >>>>> is skating on?" There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying > >>>>> that moderators must approve what I say. Of course that in > >>>>> UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my New > >>>>> Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job. If you > >>>>> butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm saying, > >>>>> then you should like to know that about 85% of my New Constitution has > >>>>> now been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read. The last > >>>>> 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted heads > >>>>> with, first hand. Once people begin showing appreciation for the 85% > >>>>> of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become available. > >>>>> But NOT on this forum. The full document will be presented as part of > >>>>> a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why this > >>>>> country needs a New Constitution Now. You guys can help speed things > >>>>> along by talking-up my document on the NET. � John A. Armistead � > >>>>> Patriot > >>>>> On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Hey John! > >>>>>> I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation! Jonathan, Mark and > >>>>>> MJ are > >>>>>> already chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and one of > >>>>>> them > >>>>>> maybe even will write a haiku in your honor! Sugarshack Literal Truth > >>>>>> might > >>>>>> even have an orgasm in anticipation of reading your next missive! > >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:21 AM, > >>>>>> NoEinstein<[email protected]>wrote: > >>>>>>> Stay tuned, People! Tomorrow I will write you another essay > >>>>>>> explaining why the "ritual" of most of our political-governmental > >>>>>>> processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic resources, > >>>>>>> or otherwise stupid. � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>> On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and fix-up. The > >>>>>>>> present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty > >>>>>>>> (happiness) of your grandchildren. There won't be any more fortunes > >>>>>>>> and little liberty if the US economy goes down-the-tubes. By > >>>>>>>> adapting > >>>>>>>> my New Constitution, the survival of the USA will be assured! � > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>>> Those interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest Distance; > >>>>>>>> Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B.& N.). I'm thrilled > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> the word 'prosperity' is being mentioned more and more as a cure for > >>>>>>>> our ailing economy (Capitalism over socialism). That book explains > >>>>>>>> the 'build-up' to my writing the New Constitution. Simple things can > >>>>>>>> turn this country around! And none of them involving conducting... > >>>>>>>> business-as-usual in Washington! Trust me, Folks! I know what I am > >>>>>>>> doing. 99.5% of those in Washington are clueless! > >>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:36 am, NoEinstein<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Mark: If you could, and would, read my document with an open mind, > >>>>>>>>> there is nothing injurious to ordinary citizens. Stalin didn't > >>>>>>>>> give a > >>>>>>>>> damn about ordinary citizens (or soldiers). He killed them by the > >>>>>>>>> millions. Are you saying that my New Constitution will harm > >>>>>>>>> ordinary > >>>>>>>>> citizens? Ha, ha, HA! Then you can't read, for sure! � J. A. A. > >>>>>>>>> � > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 7:25 pm, Mark<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I prefer to call it what it is.... Stalinesque. > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Ashley< > >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to eliminate celebrities who have an opinion > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> differs > >>>>>>>>>>> from yours. How fascist of you! > >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2011 01:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> No, Jonathan! Celebrities in the media and in entertainment > >>>>>>>>>>> simply > >>>>>>>>>>> can't voice their opinions or political preferences in any MEDIUM. > >>>>>>>>>>> The man-on-the-street doesn't get hours a week to talk about how > >>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>>> Barack Obama is, the way Oprah Winfrey did. Barbara Walters, a > >>>>>>>>>>> celebrity, made no bones about the fact she supported Barack > >>>>>>>>>>> Obama. > >>>>>>>>>>> What in our "Constitution" gives high-paid celebrities the right > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> have more influence on the outcome of elections than the man on > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> street? As soon as Jay Leno or David Letterman make one joke > >>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>> candidate for public office, they will immediately be fired or > >>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>> network closed. Politics is NOT about entertainment, nor is it a > >>>>>>> game > >>>>>>>>>>> with 24-7 play-by-play coverage with commentary and prove-nothing > >>>>>>>>>>> polls. Those who would like our government to be run the way the > >>>>>>>>>>> People say, rather than the way those who publicly endorse a > >>>>>>> candidate > >>>>>>>>>>> say, should rally behind my New Constitution�a document for the > >>>>>>>>>>> people! � J. A. A. � > > ... > > 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.
