Additional Titles








Vote Fraud: What They Aren't Telling You

Forced Mental Health Screening for Your Children







PART 1 of 2



By: Devvy

November 21, 2005

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." James Madison, Federalist No. 37, January 11, 1788

Christianity hater Michael Newdow is at it again. This time he's crusading to have the words "In God We Trust" removed from America's currency. Newdow achieved national attention several years ago when he filed a lawsuit alleging that a school policy requiring teachers to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance violated his daughter's First Amendment protection against government-sponsored religion because the words "under God" endorse religion. The U.S. Ninth Silly Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him in a 2-1 opinion issued June 26, 2002. On June 24, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision dismissed Newdow's case because he lacked what is termed 'standing.' This means because he did not have custody of his daughter, he could not pursue a lawsuit to protect her rights.

Newdow's minor daughter at the time he filed his frivolous lawsuit was/is a devout Christian, a member of the Calvary Chapel who told her mother that she was not uncomfortable about the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a complete juxtaposition of what Newdow claimed, but then again, this frivolous lawsuit was never about the daughter, it is and always has been about Newdow. At the time Newdow filed his frivolous lawsuit, he didn't even have legal custody of his minor daughter, she didn't live with him nor had he bothered to marry her mother.

Newdow's twisted logic is just that - twisted. The Elk Grove United School District had never sought to establish a government sponsored religion. Kids in that second grade class his daughter was in just said the pledge of allegiance. As a result of kids saying the pledge of allegiance at an Elk Grove School, Congress has never made any attempt to make "any law respecting an establishment of religion..." anywhere else in these united States of America. There never was any violation of the mythical "separation of church and state."

Newdow's latest headline grabber to remove 'In God we Trust' from America's currency is just another example of infantilism in its purest form. "Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto." This tradition has continued uninterrupted ever since. Newdow looks to be around 50 years old. Suddenly, in 2005, he decides that In God We Trust is somehow a violation of the establishment clause and he's afraid Congress will do what they haven't done since 1873: pass a law to establish a government religion?

What rubbish. This atheist is chasing his tail while clogging the court system with his frivolous lawsuits. Who is footing the bill for all this? Newdow is an ER doctor here in Sacramento. This type of lawsuit, filings, legal advice, travel from Sacramento to Washington, DC - all takes a lot of money. I would imagine lurking somewhere in the background is the American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU). Remember: The ACLU fleeces our pockets in legal fees for all these separation of church and state cases they use to harass municipalities all over this country.

There is no constitutional authority for Congress to rob the public treasury to give money to the ACLU to bring lawsuits against Christianity or any other religion in this country. The Republicans have had control of Congress since January 1995 and they have steadfastly refused to abolish the unconstitutional Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. I can darn well bet you that if this unconstitutional Act were abolished, we would see far less of these harassing lawsuits by the ACLU. However, since the so-called "conservatives" in this country only pay lip service to the constitution and refuse to boot out these cowardly members of Congress, we will continue to see the same garbage. We will continue to see ignorant Americans stand in front of TV camera and parrot "separation of church and state" without having any understanding of the issue - other than the sound bites they hear on the stupid tube. The dumb leading the dumb.

There is a huge back lash taking place right now in this country over retailers and others attempting to take Merry Christmas out of Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund has a web site dedicated to this issue if you would like to find out how to protect your right to freely and publicly celebrate Christmas; see here.

The battle of Christianity in this country isn't confined to just the head line grabbers. Below is a letter from one American to his state legislator that I believe people will find interesting. This letter is being reprinted with permission.

Ed Sparks
(Home address and phone number deleted for privacy)
Indianapolis, IN 46256

October 30, 2005

Representative Brian Bosma
Speaker, House of Representatives
State House
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, In. 46204

Dear Representative Bosma:

Thank you for sending me your Statement on the Prayer Lawsuit. I did answer that email but I think that this issue is most important and should be addressed in more detail. It really bothers me and I would like to address that activity again.

As I said in my email reply, the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution prevents Congress from establishing a religion in this country and also prevents Congress from interfering with the practice of any religion in this country. As an example I stated: If a clergyman were elected to the presidency and authored a bill outlawing all other religions except his own and submitted that bill to the House, Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from enacting that bill as a law.

Now here is the kicker that I think is vastly ignored. The lower federal courts are created by Congress (Article 1, Section 8, clause 9) and are subject to the same Constitutional limitations that affect Congress. As such those courts also may not interfere with the practice of religion in this country in any way. Congress may not delegate a power that it does not possess.

Therefore, since Congress may not delegate a power it does not possess, the Federal Court (District of Southern Indiana), by definition, has no jurisdiction in this case. It is prohibited, by the Constitution, from hearing or taking action in this case.

This country is founded on the rule of law. In this instance the local Federal Court has assumed the power to judge this matter despite that it is expressly prohibited from doing so. The practice of state nullification of a federal law, enacted by Congress, has gone unused for, perhaps, more than 175 years. If my memory serves me it was last used by Massachusetts to enable that state not to send troops to Washington when ordered to do so during the War of 1812. It refused to do so and nothing happened. This historical action alone justifies state nullification of an illegal federal law.

This is such an overt expansion of federal power expressly forbidden to it by our basic founding document that this state must take the steps necessary to curtail that federal power expansion into this state.

We must recognize that the basis for federal Court limitations, by Congressional action, already exists and are preserved in the Federal Constitution. Article III, Section 2, Second sentence, states: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Under this Article, Congress clearly has the right to impose any limitation it deems necessary to limit the reach of the Supreme Court. If Congress can limit the reach of the Supreme Court it is but a small step to recognize that if the Congress itself is already limited by the First Amendment (in this religious matter) then the lower Courts, created by Congress, are also limited by the same Amendment.

It might be that some would think and say that the War of the States would have nullified such State action. It did not do so. We are a nation of laws. No such statute or Constitutional Amendment has been enacted to specifically make illegal the practice of State nullification of a federal statute since that action. It has fallen into disuse and has been ignored by even those states that were or are adversely affected by any actions of Congress or by Congressional actions with which those states disagreed.

Therefore, I hereby submit this argument and do request that you prepare and submit to the next General Assembly a bill that will nullify the power of the Federal Court (Southern District of Indiana), a lower court, to hear any case in this State that would directly interfere with the practice of any religion, anywhere in the State of Indiana as prohibited to the Congress of the United States and to the lower federal Courts (a creation of Congress) by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Sincerely, Ed Sparks

Part II: Peak Oil v Unlimited Oil, more on the economy, CAFTA, FTAA, ballot initiative in South Dakota, pension plans at risk

Click here for part -----> 2

� 2005 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty, which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Your complimentary copy of the 32-page report may be obtained from El Dorado Gold. Devvy is a contributing writer for

Devvy's website:

E-mail is:









There is no constitutional authority for Congress to rob the public treasury to give money to the ACLU to bring lawsuits against Christianity or any other religion in this country. The Republicans have had control of Congress since January 1995 and they have steadfastly refused to abolish the unconstitutional Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.