Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fwd: [NationalConstitutionalConvention06] Re: this is a very good idea

Expand Messages
  • Paul Bern
    Allow me to submit one final comment on this topic before moving on to new ones. The current federal republic has been abused and mismanaged to the point that
    Message 1 of 50 , Dec 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Allow me to submit one final comment on this topic before moving on to new ones. The current federal republic has been abused and mismanaged to the point that it is broken beyond repair. Therefore, attempting to use it as a framework for a constitutional convention is just not strong enough. Although I enthsiastically agree that the time for a constitutional convention has arrived (as a point in fact it is already overdue), the current brick-and-mortar US government must be reworked and rebuilt into a virtual, Internet-based system that returns power back into the hands of the American people as our founding fathers intended. Let's not forget that the British monarchy of the late 1700's considered the Declaration of Independence as an act of sedition, and that is what ignited the Revolutionary War. My Miriam-Webster dictionary defines sedition as "the causing of discontent, insurrection or resistance against a government". By this definition, I may indeed be guilty of sedition. But, if this is so then I am proud to be guilty. The voices of dissent cannot be outlawed because that would also be unconstitutional accoeding to the First Amendment within the Bill of Rights. My vision of a virtual governmnet falls outside the definitions spelled out in Article Five. The Internet is not a state, and our founding fathers could not have forseen the Internet. Therefore, I am merely exploiting a loophole in Article Five, and there is nothing illegal about that. When carried to the furthest extent, I am prepared to fight and even to die for my cause. Are you? It is equally possible that your constitutional convention group could fall under the same definition. John F. Kennedy's decision to withdraw from Vietnam in the summer of 1963 was considered seditious by right-wing extemist factions within the federal government, and we know how that ended. Two thousand years ago Jesus Christ, a man who I consider to be a personal savior and a mentor, was crucified for sedition. The reason was that when one reads the four Gospels of the new testament without the religious content, Christ was crucified for preaching against organized government and organized religion. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

      Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@...> wrote:
      Paul, I sent you an email the other day which I hope you received. I
      applaud your efforts to form a third party for the disaffected. It is
      clearly needed. However, your desire to set up a "competing system of
      government" which is clearly stated at your virtual democracy website
      WILL be viewed by the existing federal government as sedition, and
      justifiably so, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CONSTITUTION. The
      Constitution allows for only one government to exist. However, the
      Founders envisioned a time such as ours when the federal
      government/Congress would be the source of the problem through its
      greed and corruption, and that is why they provided us with Article V.
      The key provision of Article V is that bypasses Congress(except for
      the formal calling of the Convention and stipulating the manner in
      which any amendments are voted on---via state legislatures or state
      Conventions; that's the extent of their involvement) .

      You also make the point that my efforts will be futile because of all
      the greedy, corrupt interests. I have taken that into account in
      drafting my proposal, which pits the self-interest of the state
      governments against the self-interest of the federal government. The
      philosophy is one of divide and conquer. Read post#805 which is my
      draft proposal. It makes it very attractive to the states not just to
      call for a Convention, but to see it through. Once the regional
      governments are established, secondary conventions will be held where
      reform proposals such as yours can be debated and implemented if
      desired.

      In any event, I CAN support you in your efforts to get people to
      coalesce into a VIABLE third party, but I CANNOT support you in your
      desire to set up a competing system of government for the reason
      outlined above. My desire, is to work within the LEGAL framework of
      the highest law of the land, the Constitution. I hope that you give
      some additional thought to your course of action, and join us here.
      Presently, the President Pro Temp of the South Carolina Senate, Glenn
      McConnell is in support of a Convention and has the backing of the
      S.C. House Speaker. It is the state legislatures who have to be
      lobbied, not Congress. That's how the Convention process works.

      --- In NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com, Paul Bern
      <jointheparty@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Rich, glad to meet you. Although the entire idea of Eric's
      constitutional convention group is a good one, the same problem
      resides with this as it would if I were to try and get my ideas
      passed into law within the current governmental framework. I could
      spend the rest of my life writing every Congressman in the country to
      try and get an Internet-based Virtual Democracy passed into law. By
      the same token, with all due respect to you, Eric, we could try and
      combine forces and work our tail ends off attempting to invoke
      Article Five of the US Constitution in order to get a national system
      of regional governments passed into law. The problem with both ideas
      as I see them is that the current system of corrupt politicians, the
      corporate CEO's and religious right-wing extremists, plus the US
      miitary-industrial complex and the lobbyists for all of the above
      will go to any extreme to stop us from succeeding. These abusers of
      power and hijackers of our beloved constitution will no
      > doubt go to any extreme to keep our dreams from becoming reality.
      The end result is that both Eric's and my ideas would wind up dying
      in some dumb-assed committee on capitol hill, so NO! I vigorously
      maintain that the time has come for all patriotic Americans of good
      conscience like ourselves to fight back. As I said in my original
      comments, it is time for "we the people" to take back our country
      from those who have shamelessly exploited this same constitution for
      the private gain of a select few and all at the expense of everyone
      else. Otherwise, the good old USA that we have always known will
      simply fade into history just as the American middle class will if
      something isn't done. The most basic way that we can do this is to
      form a pure Internet-based democracy that will, by default rather
      than by sedition, ultimately replace the elitist federal republic
      that has been shoved down our throats. The best part about this is
      that there is another part of this same constitution
      > that protects us in such an eventuality, and that is the first
      amendment to the constitution, our right to freedom of speech. The
      current and utterly corrupt system must be bypassed if any of us has
      a chance of succeeding.
      >
      > "richslick@. .." <richslick@. ..> wrote:
      >
      > I agree with you to a point Eric. While it is the first choice it
      is not the only or last choice.
      > Govts can be over thrown without casting a vote or a shot being
      fired. The USSR, for instance.
      > Or the "Velvet Revolutions" . I think the problem is, We the
      People fear our govt more than the
      > Soviets or Ukranians, and worse yet, we may be right.
      >
      > Rich Martin
      >
      > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      > From: Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ ...>
      > Date: Nov 25, 2007 8:20 PM
      > Subject: [NationalConstituti onalConvention06 ] Re: this is a very
      good idea
      > To: NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com
      >
      >
      > Hi Paul. Congradulations on your new job at the Atlanta
      airport. Go
      > easy on those strip-searches of the 80-year old grannies though! ;)
      >
      > All kidding aside, I share your sentiments COMPLETELY as to the
      state
      > of affairs in our country and there is now a sizeable contingent of
      > Americans from all ranks who also concur as to the sad state of
      > affairs that now exist. That said I believe you have to be VERY
      > CAREFUL as I state with respect to your APPROACH. In your reply,
      you
      > stated you "want to set up a political system"----that constitutes
      a
      > new form of governing. It is clear also that you have problems with
      > some elements of our current Constitution( electoral college, means
      of
      > voting etc.). As the Constitution is the law of the land, in order
      to
      > change it, you have to go about it LEGALLY to do so. Article V was
      > placed there to give the people and states the means. To go about
      it
      > any other way, will be viewed by the government(whether corrupt or
      > not) as sedition. That's the reality.
      >
      > Also, with respect to the internet, I believe it is a great tool as
      > per networking and getting information to a vast number of people.
      > However, to utilize it in terms of voting, I have serious
      > reservations about in terms of SECURITY. A number of computer
      > security experts are now on record as saying that electronic voting
      > cannot be guaranteed to be secure. In fact, here in California,
      > electronic voting machines have recently been decertified by the
      > Secretary of State. Likewise, computer systems can also be hacked.
      I
      > suspect safeguards though could be proposed, but presently, I am
      not
      > to keen on internet voting.
      >
      > In any event, your heart is in the right place Paul. I just don't
      > want to see you bring any unnecessary trouble on yourself. It's
      > simply a question of thinking things through and acting LOGICALLY
      and
      > resisting those EMOTIONAL urges, which we all have.
      >
      > --- In NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com , Paul
      Bern
      > <jointheparty@ > wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Eric, I hope you had a good holiday. I've been tied up with
      > thanksgiving and I'm also temping on a new job at Atlanta's
      > Hartsfield-Jackson airport, which is the world's busiest. So,
      pardon
      > me for the delayed response.
      > > Please allow me to restate my vision of a constitutional
      > convention, because it bothered me a little when you stated in your
      > response that what I am advocating in my book is borderlining on
      > sedition. I do not wish to literally set up a "rival government",
      as
      > you called it. In my view, our government in its current form is
      > unconstitutional. On that point I think we can both agree. However,
      I
      > strongly assert that our current form of government has prostituted
      > what our founding fathers envisioned and propagated. The current
      > state of affairs concerning the federal governmnet, as far as
      working
      > Americans are concerned, is that the governmental, social and
      > economic system has been abused to such an extreme that it has
      become
      > disfunctional. American jobs are disappearing due to the
      outsourcing
      > of good middle and working class careers to the third world for
      > pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, a flood of illegal immigration
      has
      > caused the bottom to fall out of the remaining job
      > > market. The reason is plain to see. American employers are
      > deliberately exploiting these third world workers by forcing them
      to
      > work at or below the minimum wage, leaving the US middle class
      > without work, and this evaporates our incomes. The cost of a
      college
      > education, of medical care and fuel has stressed American incomes
      to
      > the breaking point. At the same time, the war in Iraq and the US
      > trade deficit (and let's not forget the national debt) threaten to
      > bankrupt our beloved country while forclosures are at record highs
      as
      > working Americans lose their homes to criminal enterprises
      disguised
      > as the banking and financial services industries. Even as I write
      > this, homeless shelters in big cities such as my hometown of
      Atlanta
      > are increasingly packed full of college-educated hard luck cases,
      and
      > all with no remedy in sight. Finally, we have an economic imbalance
      > in this country where 90% of the wealth is in the hands of less
      than
      > 10% of the population.
      > > All of this social and economic injustice, as far as I and my
      > readers are concerned, is cause for revolt. By the same token,
      having
      > a cause for revolt does not equal sedition in any form. Instead, it
      > is a cause to fight back against an unjust and unbalanced system
      that
      > has enslaved us all. The reason for that is that whenever one has a
      > situation where American incomes continuously fall short of the
      cost
      > of living, then that is slavery no matter how you slice it. So,
      > working Americans from all walks of life are compelled to fight
      back
      > against this crooked and sinister establishment known as the
      American
      > military-industrial complex. We are under attack, Eric. War has
      been
      > declared on the American middle and working classes. If we don't do
      > something to fight back, we will all wind up sleeping in shelters
      and
      > standing in soup lines. That is not sedition, that is an act of
      self-
      > defense! If some criminal robs you, you can and should fight back.
      > Self-defense is not a crime, it
      > > is an honorable and neccesary act. If working Americans don't do
      > something to take back our country from the sinister forces within
      > our state and federal governments who have hijacked our beloved
      > constitution, we soon will not have a country left. We will all
      wind
      > up working minimum wage jobs by day, and by night we will be
      sleeping
      > in dormitories like convicts on a chain gang.
      > > Let me tell you what sedition is and has been within the US. When
      > John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, and Rev. Martin Luther King,
      Jr.
      > were slain by malevolent forces within the federal government (such
      > as the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service), that was an act of
      > sedition. When the US military-industrial complex got the United
      > States embroiled in the Vietnam war in spite of overwhelming
      > sentiment against it on the part of the American people,
      effectively
      > bypassing the US constitution, that was an act of sedition. When
      > George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the joint chiefs of staff and the CIA
      > lied to the American people in order to invade Iraq, that was an
      act
      > of sedition (that's also why Bush and Cheney should be impeached
      and
      > prosecuted). When American workers have their jobs, their health
      > care, their ability to go to college in order to better themselves,
      > and their home forcibly taken away from them by a system that is so
      > corrupt that it is destined to fall sooner or
      > > later, that is an act of sedition.
      > > The time to fight back against this madness is right now, even
      > from this very moment. That is what my book is about, and that is
      > what the political party that I am founding stands for. The Virtual
      > Democracy Party is the third political party that America has been
      > waiting for. All I want to do is to begin setting up a political
      > system that returns power to the people. That is not an act of
      > sedition, it is a tactical maneuver to begin the process of picking
      > uip the pieces when our current federal governmnet collapses, as it
      > most certainly will due to the extreme level of corruption that I
      > stand against. I have no plans to set up a military or any kind of
      > presidential cabinet, because we won't need one. Instead, every
      > American citizen and legally residing foreign national will have a
      > user name, a PIN and a password in order to log on to our
      > governmental process, which will be administerd from a seperate and
      > highly secured Internet domain. There will be no more voting
      > > stations during elections, and there sure as hell won't be any
      > more Electoral College (which is also unconstitutional) . Instead,
      > everyone will get to read as little or as much of every bill that
      is
      > put up for a vote in Congress, and everyone will vote on every
      > measure from their computers or even their cell phones. This
      proposed
      > new measure that I put forth in my book will save our country
      > billions in wasted tax dollars by abolishing paper ballotts
      forever.
      > This is pure democracy, this is what I stand for, and the awesome
      > power of the Internet will make it all possible.
      > > The time for the abolition of the Federal Republic so that it can
      > be replaced with a pure Internet-based democracy has arrived. That,
      > Eric, is not an act of sedition, it is an act of patriotism. I hope
      > you will join us, although I too wish to remain a group member of
      > yours. If we all join forces, we can work together to engineer real
      > change so that the original spirit and letter of the law as our
      > founding father envisioned it can become a reality.
      > >
      >
      > > Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ > wrote:
      > > Welcome to the group Paul. Although we have similar
      > visions with
      > > respect to our views of how this nation should be governed, I
      > should
      > > caution you with respect to your method/approach. Establishing a
      > > virtual democracy(rival government-- -if my interpretation is
      > correct)
      > > on the web is bordering on sedition in my view. At least that's
      how
      > I
      > > believe the feds will view it. I had a similar encounter with
      > another
      > > group quite a while back that planned on convening its own
      > > Constitutional Convention WITHOUT the participation of the state
      > > legislatures, establishing their own military, secretary of state
      > etc.
      > > They were setting themselves up for a big fall. I let them know
      > that
      > > and terminated my association with them.
      > > The difference here is that the approach advocated at this group
      > > calls for the LEGAL(Constitutiona lly authorized-- Article V)
      > > restructuring of the federal government. The bottom line is that
      > when
      > > you follow the law, you save yourself a lot of headaches in the
      > long
      > > run. In any event, others are welcome to chime in on this.
      > >
      > > --- In
      > > NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com, "paulbern77"
      > > <jointheparty@ > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Good morning, Eric. I like your idea of breaking up our current
      > > > federal republic into regional governments. I propose that we
      > link
      > > > our discussion groups to one another for the purpose of the
      > mutual
      > > > advancement and promotion of our ideas. I will be placing a
      link
      > to
      > > > your discussion group on my website free of charge, and I ask
      > that
      > > > you do the same. It would appear that we are approaching the
      same
      > > > goals from two different angles, but maybe that's a good thing.
      I
      > > > founded the Virtual Democracy Party last year with the idea of
      > > > replacing the current federal republic with a web-based virtual
      > > > democracy that completely bypasses our national government in
      its
      > > > current form. For more info, please check out my website,
      > > > www.virtualdemocrac yparty.org.
      > > > The virtual democracy party is a privately held non-profit that
      > > > advocates the non-violent overthrow of the federal governmnet,
      > and
      > > > then replaces it with a new pure democracy that exists
      > exclusively
      > > in
      > > > cyberspace beyond the reach of traditional authority. While
      > you're
      > > at
      > > > it, why not order a copy of my book "Middle Class Rebellion;
      How
      > to
      > > > Join the Second American Revolution" (Virtual Democracy Press,
      > > > copyright 2006, 167 pages)? This book is a battle plan on how
      to
      > > > legally take back our country through a war of economic
      > attrition,
      > > > with the ultimate goal of replacing the executive, legislative
      > and
      > > > judicial branches of the US government, plus replacing the tax
      > > system
      > > > with a national sales tax that is designed to siphon off tax
      > > revenues
      > > > into America's new third political party until the existing
      > federal
      > > > government runs out of cash and is forced to shut down.
      Although
      > it
      > > > is true that you can't fight the federal government through a
      > > frontal
      > > > assault or by way of a violent revolt, we can sure as hell
      starve
      > > the
      > > > beast to death by cutting off its revenue.
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > U R welcome to join the Slick eZine and receive RichsRants, Alex
      Gimarc's
      > Interesting Items, Steve Ertelt's Pro-Life News, and Kathie's
      Korner.
      > You will also receive funny Political Humor joke daily. No eZine
      > is complete without a bit of humor, is it?
      >
      > Click here: http://groups. google.com/ group/richsrants ?hl=en
      >
      > Rich Martin
      > Editor, Slick eZine
      >


    • Happy Ho Ho
      Thanks I will check it out Michael Bindner wrote: www.unity08.com Happy Ho Ho wrote:
      Message 50 of 50 , Dec 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks I will check it out

        Michael Bindner <christianlibertarianparty@...> wrote:


        Happy Ho Ho <paulpkcc@yahoo. com> wrote:
        Where can I check them out?

        Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        Unity 08 is actually a movement of disaffected individuals within
        both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is clear though that
        they aren't getting anywhere working within their parties as
        the "leadership" clearly dictates policy which frequently runs
        contrary to what the rank and file want.

        --- In NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com, Happy Ho
        Ho <paulpkcc@.. .> wrote:
        >
        > The thing is if we all organize we can take over any party and
        install our belief systems and agenda. Thats all we have to do.
        >
        > Paul Bern <jointheparty@ ...> wrote: There can be no doubt
        that working Americans from all walks of life are clamoring for a new
        third political party. The Libertarians have tried but they have
        failed to connect with the electorate. Ralph Nader tried with the
        Green Party in the last national election, and we all know how that
        turned out. Greenpeace condones violence, which will get them
        absolutely nowhere. So, the door is still open. All we have to do is
        find a way to walk through it without tripping over ourselves as the
        other parties I mentioned have done in the past.
        >
        > Happy Ho Ho <paulpkcc@.. .> wrote: We need to either invade
        and take over the two current parties or start our own and get other
        independants to join with us. I believe conservatives and Liberal
        minded people would join a third party if they felt they were going
        to be well represented. Certainly neither the Dems or repubs are
        doing that for us.
        >
        > Paul Bern <jointheparty@ ...> wrote: Well, we'll certainly
        know more by "super Tuesday", won't we?
        >
        > Michael Bindner <christianlibertari anparty@. ..> wrote:
        Legislative seats are largely partisan affairs. Unless you wish to
        be a "stealth" member of a party so that you can bring enough of your
        core believers into the primary to steal the seat from an established
        member, running for an Executive position may be the best bet.
        >
        > The problem with Unity, BTW, is that it has no provision for
        running for legislative office - a mistake in a race where winning
        one state may send the whole mess to the House, which means President
        Hilary since most state delegations are Democratic. If that number
        gets to 26, Clinton wins. If it does not, the Senate will elect a VP
        who will become President. Maybe Mrs. Clinton is better off ceding
        the top spot to someone else, with the understanding that if there is
        no House or Electoral College majority she wins. It depends on who
        Unity nominates and how the congressional elections play out.
        >
        > Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ ...> wrote:
        > I think with this upcoming election we have in the making a
        new
        > political party and that is the core supporters of Ron Paul,
        coupled
        > with the supporters of Dennis Kucinich, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan
        > Hunter. Paul's people in particular seem the most energized.
        There's
        > also a New American Independent Party now in existence. It's a lot
        > easier to start with groups that are already organized or in
        > existence.
        > With respect to targetting youth, definitely a good idea. Paul's
        > movment has a lot of young people in it. (I'm not in favor though
        of
        > lowering the voting age any lower than 18. I do feel the drinking
        age
        > should be lowered to 18 though. If 18 year olds are old enough to
        > join the military and die for our country, then they're old enough
        to
        > have a drink).
        > Finally, as per seeking elected office---a waste of time to run for
        > President and probably even Senator or Congressman. The ideal post
        to
        > run for in my view is state representative or state senator because
        > these are the positions which are involved with lobbying for a
        > Convention. Secondary, to these positions, seek something local
        such
        > as City Council, mayor, or Registrar of Voters where you can make a
        > REAL impact if elected. Your chances are much better at the local
        > level, where people know you.
        >
        > --- In NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com, Paul
        Bern
        > <jointheparty@ > wrote:
        > >
        > > Hello, everyone. First, please excuse the delayed response
        > regarding this matter of discussion. My Internet connection has
        been
        > down for a week due to the botched installation of a wireless world
        > wide web connection where I currently live. My old reliable
        broadband
        > connection is now back up, and I sure am relieved!
        > > Rich, you said "I never heard of an election described as a
        > > revolution either.I would envision it something more along the
        line
        > of the demise of the USSR, or the Velvet revolutions. " Let me just
        > say that, with the ridiculous choices that patriotic Americans such
        > as ourselves have in the upcoming presidential primaries, the
        > impending primaries hardly qualify as anything approaching a
        > revolution. Instead, we are stuck with the reinforcement of the
        > status quo. To put it another way, we are stuck with what amounts
        to
        > enforced mediocrity. So much for progress.
        > > Michael, in your response to my comments you wrote "Paul, I have
        no
        > worries that your Internet based revolution will succeed and
        neither
        > will the government. For it to work, you need enough partisans to
        > actually win an election and if you do that no overt sedition is
        > required". Hey guys, all of us wants to succeed at what we are
        trying
        > to do here. I could just as easily say that I, too, have no worries
        > that your concept of regional government will succeed, but that
        could
        > be interpreted as sarcasm. That is what your comment seemed to me
        as
        > I read it. Rather than bounce this political ping-pong ball from
        one
        > side of the table to the other, I have an idea.
        > > One of the comments in your replies was "For it to work, you need
        > enough partisans to actually win an election ". Let me tell you
        quite
        > frankly that I am giving serious consideration to running as a
        write-
        > in candidate in the national election next November. Before you
        > people start chuckling at me, I fully realize that I have no chance
        > of winning if I were to attempt this completely on my own. However,
        > what if we were to combine our ideas, and what if our proposed
        > Constitutional convention were to morph into a political ideology?
        On
        > this basis, we can and should found an independent third political
        > party and work within the system as you have suggested. Whether we
        > win or lose would be beside the point. It is the strong statement
        > that would be made by forming such a third political party as this
        > that would grab the attention of frustrated American voters from
        all
        > walks of life.One good place to start would be with our nation's
        > youth. For example, you will recall that a
        > > proposal has been made by a number of states to lower the legal
        > drinking age from 18 to 16. A far more constructive idea that would
        > capture the imagination of our young people would be to propose
        > lowering the minimum voting age from 18 down to 16. I don't know
        > exactly how many young people there are in this age bracket, but it
        > is in the millions. This would create a whole new voting block who
        > would pledge their allegiance to us. When it comes to creating an
        > instant block of new party members for our third party, this would
        be
        > an excellent way to do so. I, for one, could be the party leader
        for
        > the southeastern US, based here in my hometown of Atlanta, Ga.
        Others
        > could set up organizations in their respective parts of the
        country,
        > and I'm sure that many, many more could be easily recruited into
        this
        > proposed new organization. It's time for all of us to start putting
        > our money where our mouth is. Forming a new third political party
        > while turning our desire for a
        > > Constitutional convention into a political ideology would be an
        > excellent place to start. I welcome your comments.
        > >
        > >
        > > "richslick@" <richslick@> wrote:
        > > Michael,
        > >
        > > No reason to worry. I never heard of an election described as a
        > > revolution either.
        > > I would envision it something more along the line of the demise
        of
        > the
        > > USSR, or the Velvet revolutions.
        > > Of course, the USG controls the media, but so did the USSR. But
        we
        > can
        > > still see our factories
        > > moved to the otherside of the world, our homes being foreclosed
        and
        > > taxes going up.
        > >
        > > Article V of the Constitution provides for the states to redesign
        > the
        > > nation at any time.
        > >
        > > The question is, will the govt respect the will of the People,
        ala
        > the
        > > USSR, or will they react like Red China and Tennemenn Square? Tink
        > > about that one, and maybe you'll revisit your loyalties.
        > >
        > > Rich Martin
        > >
        > > On Dec 2, 2007 10:00 AM, Michael Bindner
        > > <christianlibertari anparty@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Shooting at Johnny Lobster started the American Revolution.
        > > >
        > > > Paul, I have no worries that your Internet based revolution
        will
        > succeed and
        > > > neither will the government. For it to work, you need enough
        > partisans to
        > > > actually win an election and if you do that no overt sedition
        is
        > required.
        > > >
        > > > It is an urban legend that the reason for regions is some gross
        > usurptation
        > > > of the Constitution. Read A Neccessary Evil by Gary Wills and
        you
        > will be
        > > > disabused of such silly notions. The reason to go regional is
        > because it
        > > > will work better and that point can be made and used to win
        > elections by
        > > > simply having the ability to run candidates who espouse such
        > views.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Paul Bern <jointheparty@ > wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Allow me to submit one final comment on this topic before
        moving
        > on to new
        > > > ones. The current federal republic has been abused and
        mismanaged
        > to the
        > > > point that it is broken beyond repair. Therefore, attempting to
        > use it as a
        > > > framework for a constitutional convention is just not strong
        > enough.
        > > > Although I enthsiastically agree that the time for a
        > constitutional
        > > > convention has arrived (as a point in fact it is already
        > overdue), the
        > > > current brick-and-mortar US government must be reworked and
        > rebuilt into a
        > > > virtual, Internet-based system that returns power back into the
        > hands of the
        > > > American people as our founding fathers intended. Let's not
        > forget that the
        > > > British monarchy of the late 1700's considered the Declaration
        of
        > > > Independence as an act of sedition, and that is what ignited the
        > > > Revolutionary War. My Miriam-Webster dictionary defines
        sedition
        > as "the
        > > > causing of discontent, insurrection or resistance against a
        > government". By
        > > > this definition, I may indeed be guilty of sedition. But, if
        this
        > is so then
        > > > I am proud to be guilty. The voices of dissent cannot be
        outlawed
        > because
        > > > that would also be unconstitutional accoeding to the First
        > Amendment within
        > > > the Bill of Rights. My vision of a virtual governmnet falls
        > outside the
        > > > definitions spelled out in Article Five. The Internet is not a
        > state, and
        > > > our founding fathers could not have forseen the Internet.
        > Therefore, I am
        > > > merely exploiting a loophole in Article Five, and there is
        > nothing illegal
        > > > about that. When carried to the furthest extent, I am prepared
        to
        > fight and
        > > > even to die for my cause. Are you? It is equally possible that
        > your
        > > > constitutional convention group could fall under the same
        > definition. John
        > > > F. Kennedy's decision to withdraw from Vietnam in the summer of
        > 1963 was
        > > > considered seditious by right-wing extemist factions within the
        > federal
        > > > government, and we know how that ended. Two thousand years ago
        > Jesus Christ,
        > > > a man who I consider to be a personal savior and a mentor, was
        > crucified for
        > > > sedition. The reason was that when one reads the four Gospels
        of
        > the new
        > > > testament without the religious content, Christ was crucified
        for
        > preaching
        > > > against organized government and organized religion. Don't take
        > my word for
        > > > it, read it for yourself.
        > > >
        > > > Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Paul, I sent you an email the other day which I hope you
        > received. I
        > > > applaud your efforts to form a third party for the disaffected.
        > It is
        > > > clearly needed. However, your desire to set up a "competing
        > system of
        > > > government" which is clearly stated at your virtual democracy
        > website
        > > > WILL be viewed by the existing federal government as sedition,
        and
        > > > justifiably so, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CONSTITUTION. The
        > > > Constitution allows for only one government to exist. However,
        the
        > > > Founders envisioned a time such as ours when the federal
        > > > government/Congress would be the source of the problem through
        its
        > > > greed and corruption, and that is why they provided us with
        > Article V.
        > > > The key provision of Article V is that bypasses Congress(except
        > for
        > > > the formal calling of the Convention and stipulating the manner
        in
        > > > which any amendments are voted on---via state legislatures or
        > state
        > > > Conventions; that's the extent of their involvement) .
        > > >
        > > > You also make the point that my efforts will be futile because
        of
        > all
        > > > the greedy, corrupt interests. I have taken that into account in
        > > > drafting my proposal, which pits the self-interest of the state
        > > > governments against the self-interest of the federal
        government.
        > The
        > > > philosophy is one of divide and conquer. Read post#805 which is
        my
        > > > draft proposal. It makes it very attractive to the states not
        > just to
        > > > call for a Convention, but to see it through. Once the regional
        > > > governments are established, secondary conventions will be held
        > where
        > > > reform proposals such as yours can be debated and implemented if
        > > > desired.
        > > >
        > > > In any event, I CAN support you in your efforts to get people to
        > > > coalesce into a VIABLE third party, but I CANNOT support you in
        > your
        > > > desire to set up a competing system of government for the reason
        > > > outlined above. My desire, is to work within the LEGAL
        framework
        > of
        > > > the highest law of the land, the Constitution. I hope that you
        > give
        > > > some additional thought to your course of action, and join us
        > here.
        > > > Presently, the President Pro Temp of the South Carolina Senate,
        > Glenn
        > > > McConnell is in support of a Convention and has the backing of
        the
        > > > S.C. House Speaker. It is the state legislatures who have to be
        > > > lobbied, not Congress. That's how the Convention process works.
        > > >
        > > > --- In NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com, Paul
        > Bern
        > > > <jointheparty@ > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi Rich, glad to meet you. Although the entire idea of Eric's
        > > > constitutional convention group is a good one, the same problem
        > > > resides with this as it would if I were to try and get my ideas
        > > > passed into law within the current governmental framework. I
        could
        > > > spend the rest of my life writing every Congressman in the
        > country to
        > > > try and get an Internet-based Virtual Democracy passed into
        law.
        > By
        > > > the same token, with all due respect to you, Eric, we could try
        > and
        > > > combine forces and work our tail ends off attempting to invoke
        > > > Article Five of the US Constitution in order to get a national
        > system
        > > > of regional governments passed into law. The problem with both
        > ideas
        > > > as I see them is that the current system of corrupt
        politicians,
        > the
        > > > corporate CEO's and religious right-wing extremists, plus the US
        > > > miitary-industrial complex and the lobbyists for all of the
        above
        > > > will go to any extreme to stop us from succeeding. These
        abusers
        > of
        > > > power and hijackers of our beloved constitution will no
        > > > > doubt go to any extreme to keep our dreams from becoming
        > reality.
        > > > The end result is that both Eric's and my ideas would wind up
        > dying
        > > > in some dumb-assed committee on capitol hill, so NO! I
        vigorously
        > > > maintain that the time has come for all patriotic Americans of
        > good
        > > > conscience like ourselves to fight back. As I said in my
        original
        > > > comments, it is time for "we the people" to take back our
        country
        > > > from those who have shamelessly exploited this same
        constitution
        > for
        > > > the private gain of a select few and all at the expense of
        > everyone
        > > > else. Otherwise, the good old USA that we have always known will
        > > > simply fade into history just as the American middle class will
        if
        > > > something isn't done. The most basic way that we can do this is
        to
        > > > form a pure Internet-based democracy that will, by default
        rather
        > > > than by sedition, ultimately replace the elitist federal
        republic
        > > > that has been shoved down our throats. The best part about this
        is
        > > > that there is another part of this same constitution
        > > > > that protects us in such an eventuality, and that is the first
        > > > amendment to the constitution, our right to freedom of speech.
        The
        > > > current and utterly corrupt system must be bypassed if any of
        us
        > has
        > > > a chance of succeeding.
        > > > >
        > > > > "richslick@" <richslick@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > I agree with you to a point Eric. While it is the first
        choice
        > it
        > > > is not the only or last choice.
        > > > > Govts can be over thrown without casting a vote or a shot
        being
        > > > fired. The USSR, for instance.
        > > > > Or the "Velvet Revolutions" . I think the problem is, We the
        > > > People fear our govt more than the
        > > > > Soviets or Ukranians, and worse yet, we may be right.
        > > > >
        > > > > Rich Martin
        > > > >
        > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        > > > > From: Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ >
        > > > > Date: Nov 25, 2007 8:20 PM
        > > > > Subject: [NationalConstituti onalConvention06 ] Re: this is a
        very
        > > > good idea
        > > > > To: NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi Paul. Congradulations on your new job at the Atlanta
        > > > airport. Go
        > > > > easy on those strip-searches of the 80-year old grannies
        > though! ;)
        > > > >
        > > > > All kidding aside, I share your sentiments COMPLETELY as to
        the
        > > > state
        > > > > of affairs in our country and there is now a sizeable
        > contingent of
        > > > > Americans from all ranks who also concur as to the sad state
        of
        > > > > affairs that now exist. That said I believe you have to be
        VERY
        > > > > CAREFUL as I state with respect to your APPROACH. In your
        reply,
        > > > you
        > > > > stated you "want to set up a political system"----that
        > constitutes
        > > > a
        > > > > new form of governing. It is clear also that you have
        problems
        > with
        > > > > some elements of our current Constitution( electoral college,
        > means
        > > > of
        > > > > voting etc.). As the Constitution is the law of the land, in
        > order
        > > > to
        > > > > change it, you have to go about it LEGALLY to do so. Article
        V
        > was
        > > > > placed there to give the people and states the means. To go
        > about
        > > > it
        > > > > any other way, will be viewed by the government(whether
        corrupt
        > or
        > > > > not) as sedition. That's the reality.
        > > > >
        > > > > Also, with respect to the internet, I believe it is a great
        > tool as
        > > > > per networking and getting information to a vast number of
        > people.
        > > > > However, to utilize it in terms of voting, I have serious
        > > > > reservations about in terms of SECURITY. A number of computer
        > > > > security experts are now on record as saying that electronic
        > voting
        > > > > cannot be guaranteed to be secure. In fact, here in
        California,
        > > > > electronic voting machines have recently been decertified by
        the
        > > > > Secretary of State. Likewise, computer systems can also be
        > hacked.
        > > > I
        > > > > suspect safeguards though could be proposed, but presently, I
        am
        > > > not
        > > > > to keen on internet voting.
        > > > >
        > > > > In any event, your heart is in the right place Paul. I just
        > don't
        > > > > want to see you bring any unnecessary trouble on yourself.
        It's
        > > > > simply a question of thinking things through and acting
        > LOGICALLY
        > > > and
        > > > > resisting those EMOTIONAL urges, which we all have.
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com ,
        Paul
        > > > Bern
        > > > > <jointheparty@ > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hi Eric, I hope you had a good holiday. I've been tied up
        with
        > > > > thanksgiving and I'm also temping on a new job at Atlanta's
        > > > > Hartsfield-Jackson airport, which is the world's busiest. So,
        > > > pardon
        > > > > me for the delayed response.
        > > > > > Please allow me to restate my vision of a constitutional
        > > > > convention, because it bothered me a little when you stated
        in
        > your
        > > > > response that what I am advocating in my book is borderlining
        on
        > > > > sedition. I do not wish to literally set up a "rival
        > government",
        > > > as
        > > > > you called it. In my view, our government in its current form
        is
        > > > > unconstitutional. On that point I think we can both agree.
        > However,
        > > > I
        > > > > strongly assert that our current form of government has
        > prostituted
        > > > > what our founding fathers envisioned and propagated. The
        current
        > > > > state of affairs concerning the federal governmnet, as far as
        > > > working
        > > > > Americans are concerned, is that the governmental, social and
        > > > > economic system has been abused to such an extreme that it has
        > > > become
        > > > > disfunctional. American jobs are disappearing due to the
        > > > outsourcing
        > > > > of good middle and working class careers to the third world
        for
        > > > > pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, a flood of illegal
        immigration
        > > > has
        > > > > caused the bottom to fall out of the remaining job
        > > > > > market. The reason is plain to see. American employers are
        > > > > deliberately exploiting these third world workers by forcing
        > them
        > > > to
        > > > > work at or below the minimum wage, leaving the US middle class
        > > > > without work, and this evaporates our incomes. The cost of a
        > > > college
        > > > > education, of medical care and fuel has stressed American
        > incomes
        > > > to
        > > > > the breaking point. At the same time, the war in Iraq and the
        US
        > > > > trade deficit (and let's not forget the national debt)
        threaten
        > to
        > > > > bankrupt our beloved country while forclosures are at record
        > highs
        > > > as
        > > > > working Americans lose their homes to criminal enterprises
        > > > disguised
        > > > > as the banking and financial services industries. Even as I
        > write
        > > > > this, homeless shelters in big cities such as my hometown of
        > > > Atlanta
        > > > > are increasingly packed full of college-educated hard luck
        > cases,
        > > > and
        > > > > all with no remedy in sight. Finally, we have an economic
        > imbalance
        > > > > in this country where 90% of the wealth is in the hands of
        less
        > > > than
        > > > > 10% of the population.
        > > > > > All of this social and economic injustice, as far as I and
        my
        > > > > readers are concerned, is cause for revolt. By the same token,
        > > > having
        > > > > a cause for revolt does not equal sedition in any form.
        > Instead, it
        > > > > is a cause to fight back against an unjust and unbalanced
        system
        > > > that
        > > > > has enslaved us all. The reason for that is that whenever one
        > has a
        > > > > situation where American incomes continuously fall short of
        the
        > > > cost
        > > > > of living, then that is slavery no matter how you slice it.
        So,
        > > > > working Americans from all walks of life are compelled to
        fight
        > > > back
        > > > > against this crooked and sinister establishment known as the
        > > > American
        > > > > military-industrial complex. We are under attack, Eric. War
        has
        > > > been
        > > > > declared on the American middle and working classes. If we
        > don't do
        > > > > something to fight back, we will all wind up sleeping in
        > shelters
        > > > and
        > > > > standing in soup lines. That is not sedition, that is an act
        of
        > > > self-
        > > > > defense! If some criminal robs you, you can and should fight
        > back.
        > > > > Self-defense is not a crime, it
        > > > > > is an honorable and neccesary act. If working Americans
        don't
        > do
        > > > > something to take back our country from the sinister forces
        > within
        > > > > our state and federal governments who have hijacked our
        beloved
        > > > > constitution, we soon will not have a country left. We will
        all
        > > > wind
        > > > > up working minimum wage jobs by day, and by night we will be
        > > > sleeping
        > > > > in dormitories like convicts on a chain gang.
        > > > > > Let me tell you what sedition is and has been within the
        US.
        > When
        > > > > John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, and Rev. Martin Luther
        > King,
        > > > Jr.
        > > > > were slain by malevolent forces within the federal government
        > (such
        > > > > as the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service), that was an act
        of
        > > > > sedition. When the US military-industrial complex got the
        United
        > > > > States embroiled in the Vietnam war in spite of overwhelming
        > > > > sentiment against it on the part of the American people,
        > > > effectively
        > > > > bypassing the US constitution, that was an act of sedition.
        When
        > > > > George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the joint chiefs of staff and
        the
        > CIA
        > > > > lied to the American people in order to invade Iraq, that was
        an
        > > > act
        > > > > of sedition (that's also why Bush and Cheney should be
        impeached
        > > > and
        > > > > prosecuted). When American workers have their jobs, their
        health
        > > > > care, their ability to go to college in order to better
        > themselves,
        > > > > and their home forcibly taken away from them by a system that
        > is so
        > > > > corrupt that it is destined to fall sooner or
        > > > > > later, that is an act of sedition.
        > > > > > The time to fight back against this madness is right now,
        even
        > > > > from this very moment. That is what my book is about, and
        that
        > is
        > > > > what the political party that I am founding stands for. The
        > Virtual
        > > > > Democracy Party is the third political party that America has
        > been
        > > > > waiting for. All I want to do is to begin setting up a
        political
        > > > > system that returns power to the people. That is not an act of
        > > > > sedition, it is a tactical maneuver to begin the process of
        > picking
        > > > > uip the pieces when our current federal governmnet collapses,
        > as it
        > > > > most certainly will due to the extreme level of corruption
        that
        > I
        > > > > stand against. I have no plans to set up a military or any
        kind
        > of
        > > > > presidential cabinet, because we won't need one. Instead,
        every
        > > > > American citizen and legally residing foreign national will
        > have a
        > > > > user name, a PIN and a password in order to log on to our
        > > > > governmental process, which will be administerd from a
        seperate
        > and
        > > > > highly secured Internet domain. There will be no more voting
        > > > > > stations during elections, and there sure as hell won't be
        any
        > > > > more Electoral College (which is also unconstitutional) .
        > Instead,
        > > > > everyone will get to read as little or as much of every bill
        > that
        > > > is
        > > > > put up for a vote in Congress, and everyone will vote on every
        > > > > measure from their computers or even their cell phones. This
        > > > proposed
        > > > > new measure that I put forth in my book will save our country
        > > > > billions in wasted tax dollars by abolishing paper ballotts
        > > > forever.
        > > > > This is pure democracy, this is what I stand for, and the
        > awesome
        > > > > power of the Internet will make it all possible.
        > > > > > The time for the abolition of the Federal Republic so that
        it
        > can
        > > > > be replaced with a pure Internet-based democracy has arrived.
        > That,
        > > > > Eric, is not an act of sedition, it is an act of patriotism.
        I
        > hope
        > > > > you will join us, although I too wish to remain a group
        member
        > of
        > > > > yours. If we all join forces, we can work together to
        engineer
        > real
        > > > > change so that the original spirit and letter of the law as
        our
        > > > > founding father envisioned it can become a reality.
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > Eric Reinhardt <ericreinhardt2003@ > wrote:
        > > > > > Welcome to the group Paul. Although we have similar
        > > > > visions with
        > > > > > respect to our views of how this nation should be governed,
        I
        > > > > should
        > > > > > caution you with respect to your method/approach.
        > Establishing a
        > > > > > virtual democracy(rival government-- -if my interpretation is
        > > > > correct)
        > > > > > on the web is bordering on sedition in my view. At least
        > that's
        > > > how
        > > > > I
        > > > > > believe the feds will view it. I had a similar encounter
        with
        > > > > another
        > > > > > group quite a while back that planned on convening its own
        > > > > > Constitutional Convention WITHOUT the participation of the
        > state
        > > > > > legislatures, establishing their own military, secretary of
        > state
        > > > > etc.
        > > > > > They were setting themselves up for a big fall. I let them
        > know
        > > > > that
        > > > > > and terminated my association with them.
        > > > > > The difference here is that the approach advocated at this
        > group
        > > > > > calls for the LEGAL(Constitutiona lly authorized-- Article V)
        > > > > > restructuring of the federal government. The bottom line is
        > that
        > > > > when
        > > > > > you follow the law, you save yourself a lot of headaches in
        > the
        > > > > long
        > > > > > run. In any event, others are welcome to chime in on this.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In
        > > > > >
        > NationalConstitutio nalConvention06@ yahoogroups. com, "paulbern77"
        > > > > > <jointheparty@ > wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Good morning, Eric. I like your idea of breaking up our
        > current
        > > > > > > federal republic into regional governments. I propose
        that
        > we
        > > > > link
        > > > > > > our discussion groups to one another for the purpose of
        the
        > > > > mutual
        > > > > > > advancement and promotion of our ideas. I will be placing
        a
        > > > link
        > > > > to
        > > > > > > your discussion group on my website free of charge, and I
        > ask
        > > > > that
        > > > > > > you do the same. It would appear that we are approaching
        the
        > > > same
        > > > > > > goals from two different angles, but maybe that's a good
        > thing.
        > > > I
        > > > > > > founded the Virtual Democracy Party last year with the
        idea
        > of
        > > > > > > replacing the current federal republic with a web-based
        > virtual
        > > > > > > democracy that completely bypasses our national
        government
        > in
        > > > its
        > > > > > > current form. For more info, please check out my website,
        > > > > > > www.virtualdemocrac yparty.org.
        > > > > > > The virtual democracy party is a privately held non-
        profit
        > that
        > > > > > > advocates the non-violent overthrow of the federal
        > governmnet,
        > > > > and
        > > > > > > then replaces it with a new pure democracy that exists
        > > > > exclusively
        > > > > > in
        > > > > > > cyberspace beyond the reach of traditional authority.
        While
        > > > > you're
        > > > > > at
        > > > > > > it, why not order a copy of my book "Middle Class
        Rebellion;
        > > > How
        > > > > to
        > > > > > > Join the Second American Revolution" (Virtual Democracy
        > Press,
        > > > > > > copyright 2006, 167 pages)? This book is a battle plan on
        > how
        > > > to
        > > > > > > legally take back our country through a war of economic
        > > > > attrition,
        > > > > > > with the ultimate goal of replacing the executive,
        > legislative
        > > > > and
        > > > > > > judicial branches of the US government, plus replacing
        the
        > tax
        > > > > > system
        > > > > > > with a national sales tax that is designed to siphon off
        tax
        > > > > > revenues
        > > > > > > into America's new third political party until the
        existing
        > > > > federal
        > > > > > > government runs out of cash and is forced to shut down.
        > > > Although
        > > > > it
        > > > > > > is true that you can't fight the federal government
        through
        > a
        > > > > > frontal
        > > > > > > assault or by way of a violent revolt, we can sure as hell
        > > > starve
        > > > > > the
        > > > > > > beast to death by cutting off its revenue.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --
        > > > > U R welcome to join the Slick eZine and receive RichsRants,
        Alex
        > > > Gimarc's
        > > > > Interesting Items, Steve Ertelt's Pro-Life News, and Kathie's
        > > > Korner.
        > > > > You will also receive funny Political Humor joke daily. No
        eZine
        > > > > is complete without a bit of humor, is it?
        > > > >
        > > > > Click here: http://groups. google.com/ group/richsrants ?hl=en
        > > > >
        > > > > Rich Martin
        > > > > Editor, Slick eZine
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Michael Bindner
        > > >
        > > > The Site
        > > > http://www.geocitie s.com/christianl ibertarianparty/ index.html
        > > >
        > > > The Group
        > > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/christian_ libertarian/
        > > >
        > > > The Blog
        > > > http://xianlp. blogspot. com/
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > --
        > > U R welcome to join the Slick eZine and receive RichsRants, Alex
        > Gimarc's
        > > Interesting Items, Steve Ertelt's Pro-Life News, and Kathie's
        > Korner.
        > > You will also receive funny Political Humor joke daily. No eZine
        > > is complete without a bit of humor, is it?
        > >
        > > Click here: http://groups. google.com/ group/richsrants ?hl=en
        > >
        > > Rich Martin
        > > Editor, Slick eZine
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Michael Bindner
        >
        >
        > The Site
        > http://www.geocitie s.com/christianl ibertarianparty/ index.html
        >
        > The Group
        > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/christian_ libertarian/
        >
        > The Blog
        > http://xianlp. blogspot. com/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > 'If you hit your head against the door and it doesn't open, do you
        keep hitting your head against that door?' The answer, of course, is
        no. You have to go with another plan.
        > ------------ --------- --------- ---
        > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
        Mobile. Try it now.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > 'If you hit your head against the door and it doesn't open, do you
        keep hitting your head against that door?' The answer, of course, is
        no. You have to go with another plan.
        >
        > HEY LEO "Are you this dumb in real life, or do you just play this
        idiot on the
        > internet?"
        >
        > ------------ --------- --------- ---
        > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
        Search.
        >




        'If you hit your head against the door and it doesn't open, do you keep hitting your head against that door?' The answer, of course, is no. You have to go with another plan.

        HEY LEO "Are you this dumb in real life, or do you just play this idiot on the
        internet?"

        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.






        'If you hit your head against the door and it doesn't open, do you keep hitting your head against that door?' The answer, of course, is no. You have to go with another plan.

        HEY LEO "Are you this dumb in real life, or do you just play this idiot on the
        internet?"


        Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.