Additional Titles










Vote Fraud: What They Aren't Telling You

Forced Mental Health Screening for Your Children















By: Devvy
July 26, 2007

� 2007 -

The political process in this country continues to be eroded by flaky females who have no idea what the U.S. Constitution says, what it means or even our legal form of government. A shining example is Elizabeth Edwards, overseer of presidential hopeful, John Edwards. Recently, WND covered Mrs. Edwards silliness: "Last week, Mrs. Edwards was questioning Mrs. Clinton's femininity, as well as her willingness to champion "women's issues." Mrs. Edwards suggested Mrs. Clinton might be behaving "like a man" because she is trying to assure voters she is "as good as a man." This spouse of a candidate, who so obviously wears the pants in her marriage, apparently wants to foist her sissified husband and his communitarian (communist) agenda on this country to prove he's more sympathetic to "women's issues" than Marxist Hillary Clinton. What this has to do with the duties of the President of the United States escapes anyone who doesn't have their brain rotting in the sludge of political correctness. If you think I'm kidding, try this utter nonsense:

"Franklin Roosevelt's stellar accomplishment in the engineering of New Deal policies was the emphasis on "purchasing power" for average Americans...The author goes on to point out the "feminization" of American society during the Great Depression, noting that "The self-centered, aggressive, competitive 'male' ethic of the 1920s was discredited. Men who lost their jobs became dependent in ways that women had been thought to be." Yet it was not only in loss of jobs that men became more "feminized. Whenever any individuals, male or female, join to create community in a spirit of cooperation, they are "feminizing", for the feminine principle is above all, relational-a concept inherent in the traditions of many indigenous peoples. It is this kind of joining that characterized the Great Depression era and to which we must aspire as we build economic, emotional, and spiritual lifeboats for the daunting journey ahead."

What does the U.S. Constitution specifically enumerate are the duties the president? The answer is found in Art. II, Section II: Presidential Power. Go read it and then come back. No where in the precicely stated duties and authority for the president does it list anything to do with "women's issues." All bills of expenditure from the people's purse must originate in the House of Representatives see Art. 1, Section 8. No where in that section will you find any "women's issues." That eliminates education, after-school programs, studies for breast feeding, child care and a thousand other areas where females in elected office have been unconstitutionally introducing and passing bills for decades. The resultant laws continue to drown all of us with unpayable debt. The horse and pony shows underway by the two "main" political parties feature the same worn out toxic chants from female politicians, candidates and wanna be First Ladies about "women's issues." Most of these silly cows endlessly upchuck popular phrases like "empowering women." The feminization of Congress and our state legislatures is destroying constitutional government and breeding generations of helpless women, whining for mother government to take care of them and their every need.

I have addressed this issue before regarding women serving in Congress and state legislatures. Should they? Yes, but only if they have a full education on the historical founding of this republic, the Constitution and the restrictions it places on them as lawmakers. They also need to leave their hormones and maternal instincts at home. There isn't a single female member of Congress who doesn't daily violate her oath of office because she has no concept or understanding of constitutional government. They legislate for "the sisterhood."

Let me give you just one example of a woman in Congress who wouldn't know the U.S. Constitution if it were read to her line by line: Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Tragically, in 1993, her husband and son were shot on a commuter train by someone with a gun who went over the edge. Her husband died. Of course this is a terrible, terrible thing to happen in anyone's life. However, McCarthy then ran for Congress on an anti-Second Amendment platform. Since her alleged election (she's in her fifth term), McCarthy has used her personal tragedy to continue her assault on my Second Amendment rights.

Other examples are women who have come from a disadvantaged background who get up in front of struggling women voters and promise all those "soccer moms" and the poor that mother government will look after their needs. These women then get elected, and the first thing they do is play mommy by introducing legislation that is unconstitutional and breeds women into dependence upon "mother government." Gus Hall, long time head of the Communist Party USA, said back in a 1996 interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer: "Socialism in America will come through the ballot box." He was right, and the feminization of American politics has hastened the process.

Women getting elected by promising to legislate "women's issues" has been a disaster. By promising all these married and single working mothers everything from free child care, after-school programs, free medical and hundreds of billions of dollars of unconstitutional dollars in social welfare programs, these hormone driven legislators are breeding generations of women who are not being "empowered"; they are being turned into whining, gimmee-gimmee females, helpless to take care of themselves, never mind the children they are birthing. These mothers and grandmothers are coming into public office and allowing their hormones and backgrounds to influence them into introducing and voting for unlawful legislation, and the gutless men in these bodies are letting them get away with it to get the "women's vote" in November. The same thing is going on in state legislatures around the country, although there are a couple dozen pro-constitution, really stand-out women in state legislatures: Sen. Karen Johnson (AZ), Aubyn Curtiss (MT) and Diane Rice (MT) just to name a few. Voters in their districts need to make sure they get reelected.

"Empowering women" is a stupid term that does just the opposite. I see these feminists and dependent women all the time in my travels. They are ignorant of the law and hate themselves as women. They work real hard at trying to change Mother Nature, and it's been a dismal failure. Life is a tough road, no doubt about it. But, feminizing government is a failed disaster and has done nothing except promote laziness and dependency in women who look up to these female lawbreakers. Every woman currently serving in the U.S. Congress needs to be thrown out of office in 2008 because they are all, without exception, guilty of violating their oath of office. Women in this country need to take a hard look at their own behavior and choices in life before asking for someone else to fund their mistakes. Women who think government is there to provide for their needs and replace a husband are only enslaving themselves and their children, and are binding themselves to a lifetime of debt and a slave mentality instead of being independent and self-reliant. As for Elizabeth Edwards and her dream of a feminine president, if James Madison, Father and author of the U.S. Constitution were alive, he would demand she shut her ignorant, carping mouth lest she embarrass herself even more than she has already. I highly recommend you read Nancy Levant's book "The Cultural Devastation of American Women"

Revisiting Bush's controversial Executive Order

Regarding constitutional issues, headliners like this continue all over the Internet: Bush's latest Executive Order Removes Last Barrier to Dictatorship!!! This EO was the subject of my July 23, 2007 column. I have received several emails telling me I'm ignorant as well as other abusive language because my assessment is not in line with other articles on this issue. Several well respected columnists have done articles on this EO where they state: "President Bush's newest executive order states that any American citizen who threatens the peace and stability of Iraq and undermines efforts to promote reconstruction and reform there may have all their property and interests seized by the Treasury department without warning." And, "The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war."


Mr. Jerry Mazza, wrote for OnLine Journal: "Yet, in this new illegal stroke of a pen Bush outlaws all protest in the United States against his scurrilous Iraq war.....By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America." Remember the Constitution is the document Bush called "just a goddamned piece of paper." No where in this EO can I find "all protest in the U.S. against the Iraq war will now be outlawed." Additionally, Mr. Mazza immediately brings his own credibility into question by using a proven lie; the quote below is from my May 31, 2007 column where the author of the 'Bush G-d damned piece of paper' quote admits it isn't true:

"When I first received an email claiming President Bush called the Constitution a "G*d damned piece of paper," I jumped on it as a great story. Two other emails followed and I was so sure I had it nailed. Others warned me to check it out further. "It might be wishful thinking," my newsmagazine friend and sometimes editor said. "Somebody could be playing you." I didn't listen. "Who cares? It makes a great story," I claimed. I was wrong. Nobody else ever confirmed the story and I've since learned the "sources" were simply repeating something they heard second and third hand." Thompson's careless, cavalier treatment of the truth has been spread around the world. He also pulled eight more of his columns because, "With the help of Bill and some other volunteers who held the intervention Monday that helped me see the light we've gone back through the databases and removed quotes from unverified sources and eliminated stories that didn't fit the criteria I claimed to follow but did not."

A Mr. Stephen Lendman, who writes to further the cause of "progressive" issues, said this in his column: "In effect, George Bush, on his say alone and in violation of the Constitution, criminalized dissent July 17, 2007." I sent Mr. Lendman mail asking him to show me where in the statutes governing the EO does it criminalize dissent? His response to me, "Ignore the language - that's my whole point. It's irrelevant as it always is. the intent is all that matters and that's open-ended, I assure you and have no doubt whatever. I know what i'm talking about." In Mr. Lendman's column he brings up EO's regarding the Constitution, which is good. At the bottom of my July 23rd column, I provided a link to a superb offering on this issue from constitutional scholar, William J. Olson; see here. I have learned a great deal from Olson's writings.

But, what about this EO - does it apply to domestic Americans? In my column I explained how to research the justification used for this EO and it's language. This wasn't satisfactory to many who maintain that "anyone" who criticizes Bush's war mongering will be charged under this executive order. Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, who has about 30 years experience in the federal courts and a web site that will keep you busy for years learning about jurisdiction and court cases, also received mail from concerned folks. He provided this response:

"Let me correct an erroneous belief floating around the Net regarding that latest Executive Order from Prez Bush. Devvy just wrote an article about this on NWV. That EO is posted here. Please notice that it is based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. The Prez does not have inherent authority to issue EOs except to his own department of the govt. All others depend on statutory authority. Truman tried to seize the steel mills and the Supremes shot that down in Youngstown Sheet & Tube, posted here You may read the various sections of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act starting here. The next section, 1702, provides as follows:

(a) In general
(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise -
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit -
(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;

(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and

(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.

Larry concludes with: "In summary, I do not think this EO will affect most Americans. It generally applies to foreign exchanges and transactions and foreigners." Time will tell whether or not Bush's enforcement arm of his dictatorship tries to enforce it against people like me. There's no question that the corrupt and constitutionally fact challenged, Alberto Gonzalez, and his Department of InJustice has abused the Patriot Act on several occasions. The blame lies with the rotten, compromised majority of the U.S. Congress who refuse to nullify the mis-named "Patriot" Act and other acts of aggression against freedom and liberty passed by that body since 911.

The one that really has me worried is a member of Congress being denied the right to see a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack; read the short column here. What is the White House hiding - again? I hope that Congressman Peter DeFazio, a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, stays on this because it reeks to high heaven - just the same as when Ollie North got caught by Attorney General William French Smith over North's direct participation in the Rex 84 treachery.

Important Information:

1, Constitution Society: The history of the founding of this republic; an excellent web site on the U.S. Constitution

� 2007 - - 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; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site ( contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy's website:

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.

E-mail is:











Men who lost their jobs became dependent in ways that women had been thought to be." Yet it was not only in loss of jobs that men became more "feminized.