QUESTIONS NOT ASKED THAT HAVE RUINED A NATION
By Greg Evensen
April 6, 2008
We are witnessing the end of a nation, it’s magnificent history forgotten, it’s potential for world leadership absolutely ruined by lying presidents, a prostituted military general staff overseeing the killing of its fighting core, bought and paid for legislators in the service of the banks, and a court system caught somewhere between military rule and the elusive but deadly concoction of “maritime” law and suspended constitutional government. The still in effect state of emergency used since March 9, 1933, including the bankruptcy of the US, and its “dissolution” of the government is the result. That is why judges rule without regard to the constitutionality of the issue before the court. That is why judges have assumed the power they have without the authority or constitutional right to do so. That is why judges everywhere ignore legal rights, deprive the accused of informed jury rulings, and dismiss tax cases at will.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS SUSPENDED AND NOT AVAILABLE TO DEFEND CITIZENS WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM.
Congress can do what it likes and ignore you. The Council on Foreign Relations dictates to congress and the President what it wants achieved toward the ultimate goal of US assimilation into the world’s government and a complete loss of our independence or sovereignty.
That is why the Executive branch and the President are racing to close the deal with Canada and Mexico to create a giant borderless region where the banks win again. That is why mutual security or defense pacts are being brokered or already set in place to assure that unrest over this or any other slave creating legislation is protected, placing our economy AND YOUR JOBS on the fast track for annihilation.
It explains the lack of any significant roundup of illegals or protection from international criminal drug running. It makes clear why a useless, meaningless war is fought endlessly in Iraq and why no one has had an original thought concerning oil independence in 60 years.
These are issues and questions that have not been asked before a responsible, serious governmental agency for a generation or more. These same questions have been ignored by candidates running for public office, and have not been considered important by the very people who are going to be at the mercy of those officials, some of whom have held congressional public office since the early 1960’s.
We are sowing what we have reaped.
Read Entire Commentary
ONE NATION UNDER SIEGE
At state level, more attempts to limit guns
By Jennifer Steinhauer
State lawmakers across the country are ramping up efforts to pass new restrictions on guns, following nearly a decade in which state legislative efforts have been dominated by gun advocates.
Much of the proposed legislation — some 38 states are considering gun-related bills — focuses on cutting off gun access to convicted criminals and the mentally ill and on improving methods to trace guns used in crimes.
Underlying many of the proposals is an effort to redefine the gun debate as a law enforcement issue, rather than one that focuses on broad-based gun ownership, to sidestep prickly Second Amendment concerns.
"The key thing is that we want to protect Second Amendment rights," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican who has supported several bills that focus on guns used in crimes but not bills that would curtail ownership rights. "Democrats and Republicans can work together on this."
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007
A Bill to Provide for the Effective Prosecution of Terrorists and to Guarantee Due Process Rights. Support the latest efforts at restore-habeas.org
It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in US custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in a zone of active combat against the United States, and individuals who participated in attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial. It permits accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial, or to choose self representation.
It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appraised of sources, methods and activities associated with acquiring out of court statements that if known to the jury would impact on the credibility of the statement, or alternatively that such statements are not introduced at trial.
It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions.
It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight. It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions.
Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul
The Constitution and Money
The Constitution allows for a silver or gold standard, prohibits paper money, and does not authorize a central bank. Congress is explicitly given power to coin money in Article 1, Section A, but no similar power was given to print fiat money.
The low respect for constitutionally guaranteed individual rights is precisely the same reason we as a nation have totally ignored the admonitions and directives of the Founding Fathers regarding money.
The debates at the Constitutional Convention clearly indicate a rejection of the proposal to "emit bills of credit" (irredeemable paper money). Even without the Convention's specific vote rejecting paper money, a specific authorization is required if paper money is to be issued, since the Tenth Amendment prevents Congress from assuming power to create money and credit out of thin air as it does today. In Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution explicitly prohibits states from emitting bills of credit and directs all states to use only gold and silver coins as legal tender in the payment of debts.
The low respect for constitutionally guaranteed individual rights is precisely the same reason we as a nation have totally ignored the admonitions and directives of the Founding Fathers regarding money.
The Founding Fathers were well-informed and were recovering from a currency crisis with the continental dollar when they met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution. "Not worth a continental" was an ongoing reality for all of the attendees.
Interstate trade barriers and runaway inflation with the continental dollar were the two main reasons the convention was convened. Some today would distort the intention of the framers of the Constitution with regard to money, but that is only to serve the interests of those who benefit from inflation.
It is interesting and important that, within the same sentence that Congress is given the power to coin money, it is also given the power to fix the standard of weights and measures. Clearly it was intended that the monetary unit be fixed in a precise weight of gold or silver. The phrase to "regulate the value thereof" has been grossly misinterpreted in the twentieth century.
Our leaders and courts have chosen to misinterpret this phrase to regulate the value of paper money by perpetual inflation -- a mockery of the Founder's intentions. The phrase permits Congress to designate the national coinage, prescribe the weight and fineness, and guarantee its authenticity. Instead of guaranteeing an honest unit of account (an absolute necessity for a healthy economy) Congress, with help from the Federal Reserve, has guaranteed its destruction through official counterfeiting. George Read, representing Delaware at the Constitutional Convention, wanted the power to "emit bills of credit" to be stricken from the document. He thought the words, if not removed, would be as alarming as "the mark of the beast" in Revelations.
John Langdon of New Hampshire felt equally as strong about the issue, saying he would rather reject the whole plan than retain the power to create paper money.
The strong motivation of the framers of the Constitution, in limiting money to gold and silver coinage, was to restore confidence in American money after the tragic events associated with the continental dollar.
In 1792, the Coinage Act defined the dollar as 371-1/4 grains of fine silver. Mistakenly, the Act also fixed the price of gold to silver at 15-to-1. This concept, called bimetallism, plus fractional reserve banking, played havoc with the monetary system throughout the nineteenth century.
In 1834 the ratio of gold to silver was changed to 16-to-1. But this kind of price-fixing between two commodities cannot work. Depending on the market, either gold or silver will be overvalued and tend to disappear from circulation. And that is exactly what happened periodically.
Today the free market places the ratio much higher. A sound system needs only to define the unit of account in one of the precious metals, preferably gold, and the market can adjust the ratio of one to the other on a daily basis.
Most Americans understand that all government functions must be authorized by their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States. While this understanding may not be as firm as it was in our grandparents’ day, it is still fairly well acknowledged. However, some feel that when it comes to matters of taxation, the government throws the Constitution out the window and all must follow the dictates of the government or pay the piper. While this is not legally true, there is ample reason for people to feel this way. The purpose of this article is to clarify what the Constitutional boundaries of taxation are and what we can do to stay clear of the boundary markers.
First and foremost we want to assure you that even government’s taxing authority must be exercised in compliance with your state constitution, or if
a federal tax, with the US Constitution.
Some of you who have investigated the Constitutional limits of taxation know that the subject can be difficult and frustrating. The Constitutional issues of taxation must be understood not only through a proper view of law, but also through a proper view of history. Taxation is as much a part of our nation’s history as is King George III or George Washington.
We will attempt to break down the Constitutional realities of federal taxation for you without inundating you with court cases and other citations. We will try to present a plain-English explanation that weaves together all the essential legal realities that are elsewhere [in other web sites and books] explored in such excruciating minutia (sometime correctly, sometimes not).
We hope to give you a strong and logical framework into which you can place all that you have read or seen, as well as all that you may find in the future.
HOW THE IRS LIES TO EMPLOYERS
"Truth is the first object." -- Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Maese, 1809.
In my recent article on How The IRS Violates It's Own Code, the facts were carefully presented which definitively proved how the IRS deliberately lies and misleads Americans by unlawfully seizing (stealing) assets by circumventing the law.
This article will prove how the American worker and employer alike have been hoodwinked regarding the withholding process. The purpose behind this chicanery is not to benefit America, but to further enrich the coffers of the private banking cartel aka the Federal Reserve.
There is no need for an income tax, flat tax, sales tax or any other direct tax. All Americans are encouraged to look behind the curtain so that they might fully understand the grand plunder sucking the lifeblood out of our economy. See: http://www.devvy.com. Don't be fooled by this current illusion of a "booming economy." Debt is not prosperity.
Employers must withhold
So says the Great Deceivers, the Internal Revenue Service. Employers are routinely told that they must, under certain provisions of the tax code, withhold taxes of all sorts from an employee's paycheck. Funny thing though, when sincere Americans request that the IRS send its representatives to public seminars on this issue, the IRS is no where to be found.
Robert Schulz, Chairman of the Board of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., made a swing through 37 cities in April and May of 2003. Before he arrived at each destination, he sent, via certified mail, an invitation to both the IRS and U.S. Attorney's offices to come to his public seminars and correct him if he was giving out the wrong legal facts regarding withholding. What could be more reasonable?
In not one of those 37 cities did either DOJ or IRS send any representative, begging the question, "Why not?" Schulz is a man of honesty and integrity. His invitations to DOJ and IRS were sincere; his only desire was to be absolutely certain that the information he communicated to attendees was legally factual. Instead, he was met with the same usual arrogance in the form of silence. Why do you suppose that is?
Abracadabra, courtesy of the IRS
Lynda Wall is an expert in the field of withholding and has been assisting employers and employees alike for many years in understanding the law regarding this issue. We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. will be holding our national convention in Washington, DC this coming January and Ms. Wall will give a two hour, comprehensive seminar that will firmly establish in anyone’s mind once and for all how the IRS lies to employers about this process and the lawful remedy.
According to Ms. Wall:
"The IRS will tell employers and employees that according to IRC section 3402(a)(1) of their code: ".......every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary."
"However, this is what the law really says: no (federal, state, city or county) municipal corporation shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or nonresident (also known as the "Full Paycheck Law"). Employers are prohibited from taking amounts from pay for federal or state taxes, fees or other charges absent the lawful, knowing, written consent of the employee.
"The Code of Federal Regulations clearly advises the employers at 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1(a) "An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding...shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (or its equivalent) for withholding. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding." Then, 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1) clearly tells the employers they cannot take amounts from the workers' pay for any form of State tax UNLESS the employee VOLUNTARILY elects to have such sums withheld.
"Consensual taking from pay occurs ONLY when an employee voluntarily elects in writing to volunteer to participate in any (federal, state, city or county) municipal corporate tax, program, insurance (disability, Medicare), trust (social security), including non-judicial tax levy, garnishment for taxes, tax offsets, tax interest or penalty and the employer consents such a request."
The fruits of your labor belong to you
Pursuant to 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either the employer or the employee may terminate the withholding agreement (W-4 or its equivalent) by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. An employer cannot lawfully take amounts from the worker's pay without the risk of being sued after the worker submits his/her written notice to terminate the withholding agreement (W-4 or its equivalent).
According to Ms. Wall, when the employer's tax professionals (CPA or attorney) are the ones negligently advising the company to convert and transmit the worker's property (pay), those incompetent tax professionals are at risk of being sued for negligence, malpractice and misfeasance. Sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it?
State laws protect workers from non-consensual taking from pay without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. Only the worker or contractor/payee can make the determination whether or not he/she wants to volunteer to participate in government taxes, fees or other charges (i.e., social security trust contributions [FICA], social programs [Medicare], benefits [disability]) as well as non-judicial liens/levies, penalties and interest.
By all means, every employee and employer should go to the law library and verify the information above. It is accurate, it is factual and it is the law on the books. Don't take the word of the IRS for anything. Check the facts for yourself. Then sit down and have a heart to heart chat with your tax professional and find out why he/she doesn't know the law. After all, they're supposed to be the experts looking out for you, the client.
Unlawfully penalizing employers
The IRS threatens employers with huge fines if they don't withhold payroll taxes. Funny thing though, according to a September 15, 2003 letter from GAO (General Accounting Office) to Congressman Elton Gallegly regarding W-4’s and reporting, this little nugget of truth stands out:
"Under current law, IRS does not have statutory authority to impose a penalty to enforce employer compliance with the reporting requirement. The reporting requirement was promulgated in Treasury regulations."
How many employers has the IRS defrauded for untold millions of dollars in fines when in fact, they had no legal authority to impose or enforce such penalties and fines?
Treaties and the Constitution
by George C. Detweiler
Contrary to current internationalist misrepresentations, the Founding Fathers never intended that treaty law supersede the Constitution.
Nearly 50 years ago, John Foster Dulles, secretary of state under President Dwight Eisenhower, asserted that "treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights." Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect rights, rather than grant them, Dulles’ calculated misrepresentation of the treaty-making power serves as a timely warning today, as a globalist political elite tirelessly promotes UN treaties and conventions that imperil long-cherished American freedoms.
Perhaps the most suitable example of a UN treaty that would "cut across" rights protected by the Constitution is the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute, which would create a permanent, 18-judge tribunal with a mandate over every living human being. Dr. Charles Rice of the University of Notre Dame Law School describes the ICC treaty as a measure that would "cancel the Fourth of July" by making all Americans subject to trial, in a foreign land, before foreign judges empowered to make "law" according to their whims. This arrangement would recreate one of the key offenses of the British Crown cited in the Declaration of Independence — that of subjecting Americans "to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws...."
Lee Casey, a former Justice Department Counsel, has pointed out that the ICC treaty "contains no habeas corpus provisions, no right to bail, and no other means of compelling the [court] to conduct a speedy trial." Under the "international standards" that may govern the ICC, Casey further points out, suspects may be detained for five years or more without being charged with a crime. In addition, those arraigned before the UN tribunals established to prosecute "war crimes" in Yugoslavia and Rwanda — which serve as precedent-generating models for the permanent ICC — have been denied nearly all of the protections and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Defendants before those tribunals have been denied the right to defense counsel of their choice; they have been denied the right to confront their accusers; they have been required to offer self-incriminating testimony, and informed that refusal to do so would be considered evidence of guilt. Even more outrageous is the Stalinesque means used by these UN tribunals to carry out their judgments. British legal activist Barry Crawford, who has been an observer at the UN’s tribunal for Rwanda, warns that "in order to enforce its edicts, people have been quite literally kidnapped and detained in secret locations and denied access to defense counsel." Identical criminal methods have been used by officials at the UN’s tribunal for Yugoslavia. But the most outrageous aspect of the ICC treaty is this: After the pact has been signed and ratified by 60 nations, it will go into effect, thereby claiming world-wide jurisdiction — including the power to arrest and try citizens of nations (including Americans) that refuse to participate in the court.
Critics of the ICC treaty, particularly those in the Pentagon who are understandably concerned that U.S. military personnel could find themselves subject to vindictive prosecution, have urged the president not to sign the treaty, and the Senate not to ratify the document should it be signed. However, relatively few of the ICC’s opponents have criticized the premise that the president and Senate have the power to commit our nation to a treaty that would inflict upon our nation the horrors described above. Indeed, most commentary about the ICC and similar UN treaties reflects the same misunderstanding of the Constitution’s "Supremacy Clause" that was propagated by John Foster Dulles so long ago.
Treaties and Rights
The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
As the Constitution was being constructed at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the experience of the previous few years made it abundantly clear that it was essential to establish the central government’s power to conduct foreign affairs. It was necessary that the United States speak with one voice in matters of international diplomacy. To have 13 individual and separate states each conducting its own foreign policy, making its own treaties and sending and receiving its own ambassadors would have been an invitation to chaos; to have 50 states doing so today would be the quintessence of insanity.
PDD 25 - a coup d' etat in American government
by Daniel New
In 1994, President William Clinton authorized himself to place American soldiers under United Nations control by a completely new set of rules. Because he knew that this radical and unconstitutional policy would bring about demands for his impeachment, he then classified the document, so that not even your Senator or Representative in Congress can read it! Indeed, Madeleine Albright argued before a Congressional hearing that it was an "Executive Branch document" and, "...in order to preserve the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government," it would not be made available to them. And they accepted that answer!!!!
The difficulty in situations like this is in knowing where to start with the impeachments.
The government did release a "public version" (available at http://mikenew.com/pdd25.html), which is a fluff piece. Alleging to be a condensation, it is actually several pages longer than the original. Here is the government's own summary of Presidential Decision Directive #25.
When Army Specialist Michael New requested to see the legal basis for the order for him to wear a United Nations uniform, his officers informed him that it was based upon PDD 25. When he asked to see it, they informed him, "No, you cannot see it. It is classified. You will just have to trust us." Michael New laughed out loud, and said, "What is this? The Soviet Union? You can't just make up secret laws, then put people in jail for not obeying them!" Ah, but they can.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations Last year, President Clinton ordered an inter-agency review of our nation's peacekeeping policies and programs in order to develop a comprehensive policy framework suited to the realities of the post-Cold War period. This policy review has resulted in a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD). The President signed this directive, following the completion of extensive consultations with Members of Congress. This paper summarizes the key elements of that directive.
As specified in the "Bottom-Up Review," the primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces remains to be prepared to fight and win nearly two simultaneous regional conflicts. In this context, peacekeeping can be one useful tool to help prevent and resolve such conflicts before they pose direct threats to our national security. Peacekeeping can also serve U.S. interests by promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth.
The policy directive (PDD) addresses six major issues of reform and improvement:
1. Making disciplined and coherent choices about which peace operations to support -- both when we vote in the Security Council for UN peace operations and when we participate in such operations with U.S. troops.
-- To achieve this goal, the policy directive sets forth three increasingly rigorous standards of review for U.S. support for or participation in peace operations, with the most stringent applying to U.S. participation in missions that may involve combat. The policy directive affirms that peacekeeping can be a useful tool for advancing U.S. national security interests in some circumstances, but both U.S. and UN involvement in peacekeeping must be selective and more effective.
2. Reducing U.S. costs for UN peace operations, both the percentage our nation pays for each operation and the cost of the operations themselves.
-- To achieve this goal, the policy directive orders that we work to reduce our peacekeeping assessment percentage from the current 31.7% to 25% by January 1, 1996, and proposes a number of specific steps to reduce the cost of UN peace operations.
3. Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations.
-- The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in- Chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revolutionary War, including in Operation Desert Storm. -- The greater the anticipated U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement operation that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.
4. Reforming and improving the UN's capability to manage peace operations.
-- The policy recommends 11 steps to strengthen UN management of peace operations and directs U.S. support for strengthening the UN's planning, logistics, information and command and control capabilities.
5. Improving the way the U.S. government manages and funds peace operations.
-- The policy directive creates a new "shared responsibility" approach to managing and funding UN peace operations within the U.S. Government. Under this approach, the Department of Defense will take lead management and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involve U.S. combat units and those that are likely to involve combat, whether or not U.S. troops are involved. This approach will ensure that military expertise is brought to bear on those operations that have a significant military component.
-- The State Department will retain lead management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In all cases, the State Department remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instructions to embassies and our UN Mission in New York. 6. Creating better forms of cooperation between the Executive, the Congress and the American public on peace operations.
-- The policy directive sets out seven proposals for increasing and regularizing the flow of information and consultation between the executive branch and Congress; the President believes U.S. support for and participation in UN peace operations can only succeed over the long term with the bipartisan support of Congress and the American people.
When the president of the United States takes it upon himself to authorize himself to do anything, outside the authority of the Constitution (the document he took an oath to support and defend), it can only be regarded as an act of rebellion to the rule of Law, an act of Tyranny, and an act of dictatorship.
Then Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee of the House, Bob Dornan, was shocked when I told him about PDD 25, in 1996. We were sitting in a restaurant at Tyson's Corner, near Alexandria, Virginia. He almost choked. The he said, "By God, I can get that document!" Then he turned to his aide and said, "You get that document on my desk, by tomorrow, if at all possible." His aide made a note. And not another sputter came from Bob Dornan or his office on the subject. Upon inquiry, all we could learn was that, "The document is not available."
The White House may make all the noise it likes about the difference in "operational control" and "command control", but when all is said and done, it is an act of sophistry. The terms are not recognized by the Constitution, and a sad day it is that we have to remind the president that we are a nation under that Constitution, not merely under the whims of a political hack. When our government leaders decide that the Constitution is out of date, (as did Speaker Dennis Hastert, when he gavelled down Rep. Ron Paul on the question of a declaration of war in Iraq), then we have government that has run amok, and will always find ourselves in untenable foreign policy situations that may please the crowds back home, for a while, but are outside the legal bounds of what we can do. Contrary to the popular mindset today, it is not true that "rules were made to be broken."
If the Guardians of the Gate do not do their duty, what happens? Two things are predictable. First, those in authority will begin to assume more and more power to themselves, ignoring those who object, because they have leaders above them who are doing the same thing. This results in tyranny. The other is that the People acquire a disrespect for law and order, because those who are supposed to enforce it are actually running roughshod over it. Historically, this creates a breakdown in law and order, and tends to lead toward the most unpleasant and dangerous mentality of revolution.
For these reasons, it is imperative that we expose the abuse of power that occurs, no matter how high the office where it is found, and reprimand or discipline those who commit such acts.
The first step in this process is for Congress to demand to see the original document, Presidential Decision Directive #25, and all other classified Executive Orders, and if necessary, for either Congress or the courts to revoke them. If a court needs to decide if national security might be threatened, that would be understandable, but if the court decides to provide legal cover to support a political agenda, then it is all over for this nation as a Republic. We may well survive for centuries as an Empire, but it won't be the same. What am I saying?! It's already not the same!!
When President Bill Clinton invoked PDD 25 with the stroke of a pen, he pulled off a coup d'etat and Congress snored. President George W. Bush, who could revoke PDD 25 with the stroke of a pen, has ignored the subject, and leaves PDD 25 in place for future presidents to use as precedent for further eroding the foundations of our constitutional republic.
The same can be said for a People who continue to elect senators and representatives who care nothing about the Constitution that they take an oath to support and defend, and who know so little about it that they could not protect it if they wanted to. They have no clue what it says, much less what it means.
(C) 2007, Daniel D. New
Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue!
This is a U.N.-free Zone
(C) Daniel D. New - Permission to copy, with credits, is hereby granted.