Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

Obviously you failed to read what I wrote. One problem addressed and solved. Two sentences.

(2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited;
(3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported;


On 04/08/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  Most of your objectives are already part of my New Constitution.  What you have done is to make a too broad list of fairly common objectives without addressing just that one "problem", which you must show you can correct in an original way.  Writing a constitution isn't about "making an outline" of desirables, it is about considering how those new provisions will affect everything else going on in America.  Choose one problem and write no more than four sentences.  So far, you haven't shown that you can do that.  — J. A. A. — 

On Apr 8, 11:59 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  How about adding the following Section to Article I of the existing Constitution.  Section 11. Prohibitions    (1) Rights inherently belong to all Inhabitants of the several States, therefore the Congress and any Agency of the United States are prohibited from enacting any law, rule, or regulation which may in any way restrict a Person from engaging in an activity which is non-aggressive in nature; every Person has the Right to his own actions, provided only that he does not Aggress against another, or the property thereof; to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreed upon terms; to use his own Power for the preservation of his own Nature, his own Life, his own Liberty; to defend against the aggression of others;    (2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited;    (3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported;  I'm sure it could be fleshed out to prohibit Congress from aggressing against us in other ways, but I was short on time.  On 04/08/2011 08:29 PM, NoEinstein wrote:          

No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those, like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get to hang by the neck until dead�like Barack Obama will be doing, soon. � J. A. A. � On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of the provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such won't be allowed. 

On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything other than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you are the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT. How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when the "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously doesn't belong to "we the people." It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of input from us mere mortals. Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR worthless piece of crap pisses YOU off. On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

who has a holier-than-thou tone 

--         The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what         freedom and liberty are. Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

-- 

       The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what        freedom and liberty are. 

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

 --        Freedom Is Always Illegal.  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

You have once again shown that you have no interest in freedom, but instead want to dictate what others can and cannot do.

That you believe celebrities should have less right to voice their opinions smacks of fascism. Or am I misinterpreting what you mean when you state, "Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a 'following' which would be cesseptable (sic) to vote like the celebrities vote. The (sic) means celebrities would have more influence at the poles (sic) than the man-on-the-street (sic).  Of course, that shift of power runs counter to principles of fair play and democracy."

Please explain to the world what "principles of fair play" means and why someone who is a celebrity will not be allowed to "play" in your world.

And, John, you'd better do it fast. I think your time on this forum is about up.

On 04/08/2011 09:07 PM, NoEinstein 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. — 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

CORRECTION! What has actually transpired! — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 8, 11:41 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Jonathan:  Intelligence is only part of a solution.  I am one in 300
> million, because I have keen powers of observation; common sense; an
> incredible work ethic; understanding of human nature; and an unselfish
> motivation to improve the USA and the world.  Most people starting to
> write a new constitution would tire of the task after a month.
> Everything I have written was for solving specific problems
> highlighted in the news.  If the Founding Fathers could have had the
> power of foresight comparable to my hindsight (learning from what has
> actually transcribed) they would back my efforts 100%.  Like I've
> said:  I've spent at least ten times the total man hours spent by
> those who made known physical contributions to the wording of the
> Constitution.  PLUS!  I have had the benefit of using my computers to
> help refine and arrange the many parts.  Show us how YOU string
> sentences together to solve a problem.  I'm not ashamed of any part of
> what I've done.  But I'd bet you aren't bold enough to try writing
> even one paragraph to improve the world.  — John A. Armistead —
> Patriot
>
> On Apr 5, 3:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John,
>
> > I am well aware of your previous claims as to why you ordered YOUR New
> > Constitution as you did. I simply wanted to point out to those 300-plus
> > million people who you deem to be less intellectual than yourself how
> > ludicrous such a construction is.
>
> > On 04/05/2011 11:56 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > Jonathan:  I've answered that same question numbers of times.
> > > Obviously, you've not read very far back in my thread.  The logical
> > > reason for the order of my New Constitution is because I used the
> > > original constitution as the model.  My first step was to transcribe
> > > the Constitution into my computer.  I did this in the days before
> > > there was big cut and paste.  Only by transcribing the Constitution,
> > > one key stroke at a time, does one come to realize how crudely written
> > > the Constitution actually is.  Except for the (after-thought) Bill of
> > > Rights, there is very little other than an organizational structure in
> > > the majority of the Constitution.  Wherever possible, I 'fluffed out'
> > > the document in those locations where the "subject heading" was
> > > there.  That's why Article III is so much longer.  Anyone wishing to
> > > find out about the Judiciary can still locate that in Article III.
> > > And anyone wishing to see if their rights are still there can look for
> > > the clarified and expanded Bill of Rights and Amendments.  I invite
> > > the readers to look at what I've written one sentence at a time.  The
> > > citizens�as individuals, not as 'puppet' members of biased groups�will
> > > have incredibly more power, and more civil liberties!  When the size
> > > of government goes DOWN, civil liberties go UP!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �
> > > Patriot
> > > On Apr 4, 1:30 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> John,
>
> > >> I have a simple question that even someone with your incredibly superior
> > >> intelligence<g>  should be able to answer.
>
> > >> How is it YOUR New Constitution has a "1st Amendment" when it has yet to
> > >> be viewed in its entirety, let alone ratified?
>
> > >> On 04/04/2011 10:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > >>> Folks:  A blushing, almost-kid-like Glenn Beck was on Bill O'Reilly's
> > >>> TV program this week.  It was discussed whether The Donald's ideas for
> > >>> dealing with our economic woes make him a viable candidate for
> > >>> President.  O'Reilly said, "Yes."   But Beck said he would prefer a
> > >>> candidate who "just speaks the truth" (rather than one who has an
> > >>> actual PLAN that works).  As a regular laugher (mostly) at Glenn
> > >>> Beck's e4 shows, his blackboards and shuffling of photos to
> > >>> incriminate people have gotten old fast.  His memorable shows are now
> > >>> about one per month, where they used to be about one out of three.  In
> > >>> essence, he has run out of material.  His having �oh-isn't-that-sweat�
> > >>> shows like Mike Huckabee isn't improving the chances the USA will
> > >>> survive.  Nor is Beck�s delusion that our present broke, broke
> > >>> government can be fixed if only the voters can be told... "the
> > >>> truth".  Beck is going on faith that towns (like in Ohio) can be saved
> > >>> and countries, too, if only the good people in his viewing audience
> > >>> can get the word...
> > >>> At Fox News only two people stand out as selling the conservative
> > >>> route to salvation for the USA: Stu Varney and Andrew Napolitano.
> > >>> Sean Hannity continues to shoot-himself-in-the-foot by having Bob
> > >>> Beckel, the socialist, Obama-loving traitor as his regular guest.
> > >>> "Bob is a good friend," Hannity says.  Anyone having Beckel as a
> > >>> friend isn't fit to have air time in this country.  My New
> > >>> Constitution says:
> > >>> "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."
> > >>> "The freedom of a fair and pro democracy press..." means that NO
> > >>> person hired by the media�as consultants, commentators or otherwise�
> > >>> shall be allowed air time or
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan: Most of your objectives are already part of my New
Constitution. What you have done is to make a too broad list of
fairly common objectives without addressing just that one "problem",
which you must show you can correct in an original way. Writing a
constitution isn't about "making an outline" of desirables, it is
about considering how those new provisions will affect everything else
going on in America. Choose one problem and write no more than four
sentences. So far, you haven't shown that you can do that. — J. A.
A. —
>
On Apr 8, 11:59 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> How about adding the following Section to Article I of the existing
> Constitution.
>
> Section 11. Prohibitions
>    (1) Rights inherently belong to all Inhabitants of the several
> States, therefore the Congress and any Agency of the United States are
> prohibited from enacting any law, rule, or regulation which may in any
> way restrict a Person from engaging in an activity which is
> non-aggressive in nature; every Person has the Right to his own actions,
> provided only that he does not Aggress against another, or the property
> thereof; to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually
> agreed upon terms; to use his own Power for the preservation of his own
> Nature, his own Life, his own Liberty; to defend against the aggression
> of others;
>    (2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of
> anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited;
>    (3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of
> this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported;
>
> I'm sure it could be fleshed out to prohibit Congress from aggressing
> against us in other ways, but I was short on time.
>
> On 04/08/2011 08:29 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those,
> > like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head
> > like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or
> > four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or
> > business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you
> > to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to
> > survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
> > to hang by the neck until dead�like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.
> > � J. A. A. �
> > On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would
> >> hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New
> >> Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of the
> >> provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our
> >> current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the
> >> provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such
> >> won't be allowed.
>
> >> On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new
> >>> constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything other
> >>> than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a
> >>> committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy
> >>> was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees
> >>> do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those
> >>> of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you
> >>> and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would
> >>> address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm
> >>> one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>> On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New
> >>>> Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you are
> >>>> the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT.
> >>>> How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when the
> >>>> "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously doesn't
> >>>> belong to "we the people."
> >>>> It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of
> >>>> input from us mere mortals.
> >>>> Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR worthless
> >>>> piece of crap pisses YOU off.
> >>>> On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> who has a holier-than-thou tone
> >>>> --
> >>>>         The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> >>>>         freedom and liberty are.
> >>>> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> >>>> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
> >> --
>
> >>        The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> >>        freedom and liberty are.
>
> >> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> >> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> --
>
>       Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> 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/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

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 <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> 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 <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> 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.  ï¿½ John A. Armistead
> > > �  Patriot
> > > On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> Stalinesque...... Your "pegging" ANYONE that speaks freely as an "outlaw" is
> > >> absolutely Stalinesque.
>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  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.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > >>> On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>> 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!  ï¿½ J. A.
> > >>>>> Armistead �   Patriot
> > >>>>> On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>>>> 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.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > >>>>>>> On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>>>>>> 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<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> 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<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 decide." Would not a better (and less expensive)
> > >>> solution
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm
> > >>> that has no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would
> > >>> need, as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the
> > >>> God-damned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when
> > >>> "treated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> government that has treated us unfairly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> How can government be the problem and the solution at the same
> > >>> time?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not
> > >>> work. How
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the
> > >>> collection
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm
> > >>> would have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> no vested interest either way.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury
> > >>> decide" is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of
> > >>> "democracy."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Will the population collectively sit on every jury?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          *DEMOCRACY*, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.]
> > >>> Government
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          by the people; a form of government, in which the
> > >>> supreme power is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in
> > >>> which the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the
> > >>> government
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          of Athens.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan:  You are a hopeless case.  No one is needed to
> > >>> explain the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
> > >>> you."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair.  In the
> > >>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties
> > >>> to the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> contract are happy with the deal.  If a person thinks they have
> > >>> been
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in
> > >>> civil
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> court and let the jury decide.  Those with a conscience (but
> > >>> not you)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others.  No
> > >>> one needs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to
> > >>> say!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum.  You don't
> > >>> have the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning ability of a (blind) mole.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > >>> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy
> > >>> in the USA!"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's
> > >>> for lunch."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

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 <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
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.  ï¿½ John A. Armistead
> > �  Patriot
> > On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Stalinesque...... Your "pegging" ANYONE that speaks freely as an "outlaw" is
> >> absolutely Stalinesque.
>
> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  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.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>> On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> 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!  ï¿½ J. A.
> >>>>> Armistead �   Patriot
> >>>>> On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> 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.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> 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<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>> 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<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 decide." Would not a better (and less expensive)
> >>> solution
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm
> >>> that has no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would
> >>> need, as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the
> >>> God-damned
> >>>>>>>>>>>> government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when
> >>> "treated
> >>>>>>>>>>>> unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> government that has treated us unfairly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How can government be the problem and the solution at the same
> >>> time?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not
> >>> work. How
> >>>>>>>>>>>> does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the
> >>> collection
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm
> >>> would have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> no vested interest either way.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury
> >>> decide" is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of
> >>> "democracy."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Will the population collectively sit on every jury?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>          *DEMOCRACY*, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.]
> >>> Government
> >>>>>>>>>>>>          by the people; a form of government, in which the
> >>> supreme power is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>          lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in
> >>> which the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>          people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the
> >>> government
> >>>>>>>>>>>>          of Athens.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan:  You are a hopeless case.  No one is needed to
> >>> explain the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
> >>> you."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair.  In the
> >>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties
> >>> to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> contract are happy with the deal.  If a person thinks they have
> >>> been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in
> >>> civil
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> court and let the jury decide.  Those with a conscience (but
> >>> not you)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others.  No
> >>> one needs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to
> >>> say!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum.  You don't
> >>> have the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning ability of a (blind) mole.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> >>> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy
> >>> in the USA!"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's
> >>> for lunch."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan:  If you had spent 14 years of your life
> >>> writing a New
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution for the benefit of most Americans, you'd realize
> >>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ego" just wouldn't be a suitable enough motive.  Apparently,
> >>> I pegged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you right that you are simply jealous that I have already
> >>> accomplished
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things you've only talked about.  Conservatives such as Glenn
> >>> Beck and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rush Limbaugh like to talk about this country's problems, but
> >>> can't be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken seriously that they actually want those problems to be
> >>> solved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano has close to the right assessments of
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconstitutionality of much that the WH is doing.  But he
> >>> always grins
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and stops short of calling for the immediate arrest of Barack
> >>> Obama
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for TREASON.  My New Constitution will hang any public
> >>> official not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upholding this simple sworn statement: "Fair play and
> >>> democracy shall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have supremacy in the USA!"  Since socialism and communism
> >>> are the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-theses of fair play and of democracy, I highly recommend
> >>> that no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> socialist-communist-minded air-heads ever seek public office.
> >>>   If they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, there could
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

How about adding the following Section to Article I of the existing Constitution.

Section 11. Prohibitions
  (1) Rights inherently belong to all Inhabitants of the several States, therefore the Congress and any Agency of the United States are prohibited from enacting any law, rule, or regulation which may in any way restrict a Person from engaging in an activity which is non-aggressive in nature; every Person has the Right to his own actions, provided only that he does not Aggress against another, or the property thereof; to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreed upon terms; to use his own Power for the preservation of his own Nature, his own Life, his own Liberty; to defend against the aggression of others;
  (2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited;
  (3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported;

I'm sure it could be fleshed out to prohibit Congress from aggressing against us in other ways, but I was short on time.

On 04/08/2011 08:29 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those, like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get to hang by the neck until dead—like Barack Obama will be doing, soon. — J. A. A. — 

On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of the provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such won't be allowed.  On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:          

Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything other than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you are the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT. 

How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when the "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously doesn't belong to "we the people." 

It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of input from us mere mortals. 

Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR worthless piece of crap pisses YOU off. 

On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

who has a holier-than-thou tone 

-- 

       The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what        freedom and liberty are. 

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

 --        The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what       freedom and liberty are.  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: Your "power" as a supposed moderator can't give you the ability
to control my free speech. My New Constitution says: "No medium
(Google, etc.) shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of its
management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone (Mark) who uses
such job to hawk their personal political preferences—at risk of loss
of license or closure of the business." The many readers know you are
just a left-wing bag of hot air. You've already lost the battle,
traitor. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Apr 8, 11:39 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This Sir: "Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
> to hang by the neck until dead—like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.
>
> Has just put you on Moderation. We do NOT accept overt threats. You will
> remain moderated until I am sure you have cleaned up your act.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:29 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those,
> > like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head
> > like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or
> > four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or
> > business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you
> > to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to
> > survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
> > to hang by the neck until dead—like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.
> > — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would
> > > hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New
> > > Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of the
> > > provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our
> > > current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the
> > > provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such
> > > won't be allowed.
>
> > > On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new
> > > > constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything other
> > > > than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a
> > > > committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy
> > > > was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees
> > > > do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those
> > > > of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you
> > > > and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would
> > > > address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm
> > > > one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > > On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New
> > > >> Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you
> > are
> > > >> the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT.
>
> > > >> How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when
> > the
> > > >> "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously doesn't
> > > >> belong to "we the people."
>
> > > >> It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of
> > > >> input from us mere mortals.
>
> > > >> Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR worthless
> > > >> piece of crap pisses YOU off.
>
> > > >> On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> who has a holier-than-thou tone
> > > >> --
>
> > > >>        The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> > > >>        freedom and liberty are.
>
> > > >> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> > > >> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > > --
>
> > >       The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> > >       freedom and liberty are.
>
> > > 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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *
> *

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Jonathan: Intelligence is only part of a solution. I am one in 300
million, because I have keen powers of observation; common sense; an
incredible work ethic; understanding of human nature; and an unselfish
motivation to improve the USA and the world. Most people starting to
write a new constitution would tire of the task after a month.
Everything I have written was for solving specific problems
highlighted in the news. If the Founding Fathers could have had the
power of foresight comparable to my hindsight (learning from what has
actually transcribed) they would back my efforts 100%. Like I've
said: I've spent at least ten times the total man hours spent by
those who made known physical contributions to the wording of the
Constitution. PLUS! I have had the benefit of using my computers to
help refine and arrange the many parts. Show us how YOU string
sentences together to solve a problem. I'm not ashamed of any part of
what I've done. But I'd bet you aren't bold enough to try writing
even one paragraph to improve the world. — John A. Armistead —
Patriot

On Apr 5, 3:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I am well aware of your previous claims as to why you ordered YOUR New
> Constitution as you did. I simply wanted to point out to those 300-plus
> million people who you deem to be less intellectual than yourself how
> ludicrous such a construction is.
>
> On 04/05/2011 11:56 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  I've answered that same question numbers of times.
> > Obviously, you've not read very far back in my thread.  The logical
> > reason for the order of my New Constitution is because I used the
> > original constitution as the model.  My first step was to transcribe
> > the Constitution into my computer.  I did this in the days before
> > there was big cut and paste.  Only by transcribing the Constitution,
> > one key stroke at a time, does one come to realize how crudely written
> > the Constitution actually is.  Except for the (after-thought) Bill of
> > Rights, there is very little other than an organizational structure in
> > the majority of the Constitution.  Wherever possible, I 'fluffed out'
> > the document in those locations where the "subject heading" was
> > there.  That's why Article III is so much longer.  Anyone wishing to
> > find out about the Judiciary can still locate that in Article III.
> > And anyone wishing to see if their rights are still there can look for
> > the clarified and expanded Bill of Rights and Amendments.  I invite
> > the readers to look at what I've written one sentence at a time.  The
> > citizens�as individuals, not as 'puppet' members of biased groups�will
> > have incredibly more power, and more civil liberties!  When the size
> > of government goes DOWN, civil liberties go UP!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �
> > Patriot
> > On Apr 4, 1:30 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> I have a simple question that even someone with your incredibly superior
> >> intelligence<g>  should be able to answer.
>
> >> How is it YOUR New Constitution has a "1st Amendment" when it has yet to
> >> be viewed in its entirety, let alone ratified?
>
> >> On 04/04/2011 10:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Folks:  A blushing, almost-kid-like Glenn Beck was on Bill O'Reilly's
> >>> TV program this week.  It was discussed whether The Donald's ideas for
> >>> dealing with our economic woes make him a viable candidate for
> >>> President.  O'Reilly said, "Yes."   But Beck said he would prefer a
> >>> candidate who "just speaks the truth" (rather than one who has an
> >>> actual PLAN that works).  As a regular laugher (mostly) at Glenn
> >>> Beck's e4 shows, his blackboards and shuffling of photos to
> >>> incriminate people have gotten old fast.  His memorable shows are now
> >>> about one per month, where they used to be about one out of three.  In
> >>> essence, he has run out of material.  His having �oh-isn't-that-sweat�
> >>> shows like Mike Huckabee isn't improving the chances the USA will
> >>> survive.  Nor is Beck�s delusion that our present broke, broke
> >>> government can be fixed if only the voters can be told... "the
> >>> truth".  Beck is going on faith that towns (like in Ohio) can be saved
> >>> and countries, too, if only the good people in his viewing audience
> >>> can get the word...
> >>> At Fox News only two people stand out as selling the conservative
> >>> route to salvation for the USA: Stu Varney and Andrew Napolitano.
> >>> Sean Hannity continues to shoot-himself-in-the-foot by having Bob
> >>> Beckel, the socialist, Obama-loving traitor as his regular guest.
> >>> "Bob is a good friend," Hannity says.  Anyone having Beckel as a
> >>> friend isn't fit to have air time in this country.  My New
> >>> Constitution says:
> >>> "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."
> >>> "The freedom of a fair and pro democracy press..." means that NO
> >>> person hired by the media�as consultants, commentators or otherwise�
> >>> shall be allowed air time or print space to promote socialist or
> >>> communist ideals without that medium forfeiting their license.  Folks,
> >>> "FAIR AND BALANCED" is pushing the USA to the brink of destruction!
> >>> Unless and until FOX News begins talking about saving the USA rather
> >>> than playing-up our many conflicts, for monetary (Jewish) gain, they
> >>> aren't worthy of any "conservative" acclaim.  Britt Hume and Chris
> >>> Wallace, et. al are hurting the USA with every liberal word they
> >>> speak.  O'Reilly�on conversational rudeness alone (interrupting and
> >>> wrongly summarizing what the guest wishes to say)�should be fired,
> >>> immediately.  Apparently, if rudeness gets... viewers, FOX is in favor
> >>> of it.
> >>> I invite any of the readers to state views about FOX that might be
> >>> positive.  For me, the corporate culture, there, is neutralizing most
> >>> potentially helpful aspects.
> >>> Respectfully submitted,
> >>> � John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>> AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics
> >>> Those who might be interested are invited to read my book: "The
> >>> Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity."  Such is available at
> >>> Amazon and B&    N.
> >>> On Apr 1, 2:29 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>    wrote:
> >>>> Talk, alone, can�t save the US economy and social order.
> >>>> This week Glenn Beck compared Judaism and Islam.  He�s right that Jews
> >>>> are less harsh in dealing with �prohibited� activities than Muslims.
> >>>> But, apparently, Beck hasn�t considered the �hidden dangers� posed by
> >>>> the Jews in Israel that hurt the chances the world can
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

This Sir: "Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
to hang by the neck until dead—like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.

Has just put you on Moderation. We do NOT accept overt threats. You will remain moderated until I am sure you have cleaned up your act.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:29 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:

No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those,
like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head
like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or
four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or
business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you
to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to
survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
to hang by the neck until dead—like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.
— J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would
> hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New
> Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of the
> provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our
> current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the
> provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such
> won't be allowed.
>
> On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new
> > constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything other
> > than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a
> > committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy
> > was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees
> > do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those
> > of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you
> > and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would
> > address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm
> > one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New
> >> Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you are
> >> the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT.
>
> >> How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when the
> >> "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously doesn't
> >> belong to "we the people."
>
> >> It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of
> >> input from us mere mortals.
>
> >> Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR worthless
> >> piece of crap pisses YOU off.
>
> >> On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> who has a holier-than-thou tone
> >> --
>
> >>        The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> >>        freedom and liberty are.
>
> >> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> >> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> --
>
>       The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
>       freedom and liberty are.
>
> 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/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.