Additional Titles









Vote Fraud: What They Aren't Telling You

Forced Mental Health Screening for Your Children










By: Devvy

December 12, 2005

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, "Federalist No. 45," Jan. 26, 1788

On Dec. 2, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled that Illinois restrictions on the sale of sexually explicit, violent video games to minors is unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing a law passed by their Legislature. Opponents of this law, which would have gone into effect Jan. 1, 2006, declared it a restriction on free speech.

Judge Kennelly agreed by ruling "the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that." Kennelly further went on to say, "In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes."

These retailers who complained so loudly about this law have not had their free-speech rights abridged. They can still sell to anyone over the age of 18. The 50 state legislatures in this republic are part of a union, but they are also separate, sovereign republics unto themselves. State legislatures routinely pass legislation that restricts the sale or consumption of certain products by minors. For example, states pass legislation that prohibits minors from purchasing and consuming alcohol and tobacco. The key word here is minors.

The retailers of these videos displaying violence and sexually explicit material operate within the states of the Union and are therefore under the control of the state just like any other retail enterprise. The Illinois State Legislature passed this law, not to violate the free speech of retailers who sell this garbage, but to restrict sales to minors. This is their right under the 10th Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How, pray tell, is restricting the sale of any video to minors by a local retailer a violation of free speech? Congress isn't in Illinois attempting to abridge free speech. Selling a video is now considered an act of free speech? How absurd, and yet here we have another federal judge stomping on the rights of the states under some flimsy and silly ruling. Of course, Judge Kennelly isn't worried about any rotten decisions he makes because he knows there is no oversight of federal judges by the counterfeit U.S. Senate.

Another controversy is playing itself out with the usual characters parroting their ignorance. The other night on a cable show, Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, outlined how her organization went to federal court last week to stop the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Department of Transportation from putting up Christian crosses on state property to honor state troopers killed in the line of duty. Ms. Johnson, looking ever so serious said that putting up these crosses violates the U.S. Constitution and the Utah State Constitution. Really?

Americans are born with the freedom to express themselves and practice the religion of their choice or not worship any religion. Naturalized citizens also enjoy this birthright which is reinforced for them when they become a citizen of this republic. When the framers of the Constitution were creating our magnificent form of government, geniuses like Patrick Henry wanted to make absolutely sure that it was understood by the new federal government that the Bill of Rights did not grant the government any powers over the people, but rather these rights were listed to seal in concrete that we are born with these rights, here they are and no government can violate them. Again, let us compare the First Amendment with Ms. Johnson's position:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress is not in the State of Utah attempting to establish any religion or pass any law establishing a religion in the State of Utah. Congress is not in the State of Utah attempting to prohibit anyone from exercising religious freedom. In this instance, the Utah Highway Patrol and Utah Department of Transportation, both under the control of the legislature, have determined that it is appropriate to put up a cross along the road where an officer has died. This property is the domain of the State of Utah. I can find no where in my research where the State of Utah intends to pass any law to establish any religion as a result of putting up this Christian marker honoring a fallen law enforcement officer nor can I find any intention by the State of Utah to force atheists in their state to worship any religion.

According to Ms. Johnson, "The crosses are intentionally erected by the (Utah Highway Patrol) Association in prominent places visible to the general public," notes the court affidavit. "They are visible to motorists using the adjacent roads and highways owned by the State of Utah. It's a growing problem across the country. We end up with these little Christian shrines everywhere."

Gee, that's such a hardship, isn't it? Several of these Christian crosses mentioned in the lawsuit by these Christianity haters were actually put up way back in the early 1990s by the Utah Highway Patrol Association. Funny that Ms. Johnson is just now getting her knickers in a twist over the issue. If putting up these few crosses here and there is a violation of some state regulation, then that should be addressed by the legislature and the bureaucracies involved. Then the legislature can decide to change the law if they want or make any corrections to adhere to existing law. However, none of this represents any effort to prohibit or interfere with Ms. Johnson's right to believe in nothing nor is it any effort to force any religion upon her. This lawsuit by the American Atheists is just more of the same and will no doubt be backed up by some federal judge who will hallucinate another version of the worn out decision of "violation of church and state." Of course, this judge will have nothing to fear from the U.S. Senate because there is no oversight from that cowardly body.

Understandably, Utah's law enforcement are upset about this lawsuit: "Our statement right now without seeing (the lawsuit) is we stand behind our troopers and the sacrifice they made, which is the ultimate sacrifice for the citizens of Utah. Obviously we're going to try to keep those crosses there in their memory," said Trooper Jeff Nigbur, Utah Highway Patrol spokesman.

I am wondering if these same law enforcement folks have rallied to support those who have stood the front lines against the ACLU and their massive anti - Christianity lawsuits because their brothers in other states have not. Down in Alabama, law enforcement were out in huge force to side against the people when the Ten Commandments monument was removed from their State Supreme Court, even though the Ten Commandments are on display over the front entrance and carved on the doors of the the U.S. Supreme Court and on display inside the Library of Congress.

Oh, by the way, just an interesting note here: This lawsuit filed on behalf of the American Atheists lists the attorney for their camp as Utah Legal Clinic, Brian M. Barnard, attorney at law. If you do some research on Brian M. Barnard of the Utah Legal Clinic - surprise, surprise! - Barnard is a cooperating attorney for the ACLU in Utah.

Another ruling by a federal judge that has received no media attention is the latest one in the Bill Benson case I covered in my column, "Checkmate," a few weeks ago. This very important First Amendment case has taken another twist by a compromised federal judge. Benson's attorney filed a brief that backed the U.S. attorneys into a hole so deep, they should have disappeared. Instead of finding in favor of Benson, federal magistrate Judge Keys simply ignored a prevailing Seventh Circuit ruling in favor of the hand that feeds him.

Benson's legal team has filed their latest brief in opposition to this latest travesty. So far, not one single conservative radio talk-show host, cable show or mainstream media has covered one minute of this critical case. Judge Keys should be removed from the bench, but he knows that won't happen.

Every day we hear from conservative leaders in Congress, talk radio, cable shows and on conservative websites all about how the ACLU - backed up by federal judges - is running amok over the First Amendment and its massive effort to erase Christ from America. There is and always has been a remedy that the Republican-controlled Congress (since January 1995) have refused to execute: Abolish the unconstitutional Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. All this talk, but never any action to permanently fix the problem.

This issue is monumental in this country because these out-of-control federal judges are ruining people's lives, e.g., the Kelo decision. Right now there is a huge battle going on down in Rivera Beach, Florida. We all knew this was coming because of the Kelo abomination by the U.S. Supreme Court and it's spreading like wildfire. City officials of this predominantly, poor town where a large percentage of the residents are black Americans, have begun the process to kick them out of their homes - approximately 6,000 of our fellow Americans - in order to build a billion-dollar yachting and housing complex.

I have watched the interviews on the tube with the mayor who has taken the position that without new tax revenues the town will die. The people who live in this waterfront community - some for 30, 40 years in their little homes- they don't want to be forced out and are determined to fight a battle that never should be taking place. The Kelo decision flies in the face of the most important tenets of our republic: the right to be secure in our homes and not have them snatched out from under us without a very compelling need by the state. Remember: the first plank of the communist manifesto is the abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. I say boot these U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted for communism.

Instead of getting tough with federal judges who ignore the Constitution and are legislating from the bench, what do these jokers in the U.S. Senate spend their time doing? Last week, the Herald Tribune and other media outlets carried this earth-shattering story: "U.S. Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both Democrats, recently proposed that the Senate recognize the release of the album that catapulted their fellow New Jerseyite, Springsteen, into stardom three decades ago. The GOP leadership in the Senate didn't give the resolution a hearing."

The U.S. Senate will waste time on bickering over a resolution to honor some rock singer, but they sit back and allow these federal judges - including U.S. Supreme Court justices - to continue destroying the rights of Americans and stomping on states' rights with their unconstitutional and convoluted decisions. Thirty-three U.S. Senate seats are unlawfully up for re-election in 2006. If the voters once again reward these ineffective slackers by voting them back into office, the destruction of everything we hold dear will continue at hyper speed.

Just a quick note for those ordering my One for the Road for Christmas stocking stuffers or gifts to your employees: The last day for shipping to arrive by Christmas will be December 16, 2005, so please get your order in now. Here is feedback from a gentleman who purchased five sets: "Devvy, One for the Road arrived today...I just finished listening to them, this is one of the best ideas. I listen while working, I cannot sit and read all day....I do not get paid to read, so if I can listen while I work, that's better, for I would not get the education any other way."

Also, regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, our dear freedom fighters are deployed not just in Iraq, but around the globe. Christmas time is especially difficult for them. I know because I am married to a retired U.S. Army Colonel and the loneliness from being so far away from family this time of the year is very difficult. Joe Scarborough and the USO have teamed up to provide Operation Phone Home. Our military desperately need these phone cards and I know every soldier will be very grateful if you can help. Our family pooled together and made one family donation for our military family so they can phone home on Christmas. If you are interested, please click here and God bless you.

� 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:










On Dec. 2, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled that Illinois restrictions on the sale of sexually explicit, violent video games to minors is unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing a law passed by their Legislature.