--- On Mon, 1/26/09, Warren Ogren <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Warren Ogren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [tomtancredoforpresident] The Battle to Stop the
Constitutional Convention
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 8:16 PM
Rich,
Instead directing efforts to stop an idiotic Con Con, try to get an
honest and intelligent Congressman or two (Assuming we have such a
creature in our government.) to introduce legislation to amend the
original intent of that part of our constitution to limit the amount
of change to specific - pre agreed upon changes that are voted on and
agreed upon prior to any convention.
Warren Ogren
----- Original Message -----
From: rich martin
To: 1. Ann_Coulter_ Fan_Club ; 1. Moral_Conservatism ; 1.3
phantomtruth ; 1.3 tomtancredoforpresi dent ; 1.32 RonPaulforPresident
; 1.5 freedoms_cry_ litigators
Cc: 1.6 patriotpride1@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:47 PM
Subject: [tomtancredoforpres ident] The Battle to Stop the
Constitutional Convention
The Battle to Stop the Constitutional Convention
It takes 34 states to demand a ConCon, AND 39 states to ratify their
proposals into law.
Article V states "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds
of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing
amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several states,"
The idea that the fedl govt could control/select the participants of a
ConCon is ludicrous. Pure dribble. The idea of a ConCon is to get
something done that the feds have refused to do. Anything a ConCon
constisting of fedl public servants could do now easier than in a
ConCon setting.
Going from "each delegate can take a scalpel (pen) to it and change
any section or even the entire document if they desire," to "All of
these choices would be made by Congress - that same one now controlled
by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." These are out right scare tactics.
Even if this was snuck in, it would still require ratifiacation by 39
STATES.
The Founding Fathers were not nearly as stupid as some would have US
think. They wrote Article V to assure their creation didn't take
control over them.
Rich Martin
Editor, Slick eZine
The Battle to Stop the Constitutional Convention
January 16, 2009
By Tom DeWeese
The phone call came to my home late on Tuesday night telling me that
the next morning the Ohio House of Representatives would be holding
hearings on a resolution to call for a Constitutional Convention. We
knew this was not good news. But the news was even worse. To our
shock, records indicated that if Ohio were to pass such a resolution,
it would be state number thirty-three. Only thirty-four states are
needed to officially kick the convention apparatus into gear. We were
only two states away! And we had only 18 hours to prepare for battle.
Now, sponsors of the resolution were not wild-eyed Leftists who sought
to purge the Constitution. Rather, they were patriotic Republican
conservatives who were vitally concerned about the massive spending
spree and bailouts taking place in Washington , D.C. The issue, said
the sponsors, was to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S
Constitution.
So why were we so concerned about the idea of a "Con Con?" Why were we
ready to fight to stop it, especially if it could lead to controlling
the outrageous waste of tax dollars in Washington ? The reason is
simple. These legislators were operating on very bad advice.
The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a
Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States'
hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do
in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to only discuss a
balance budget is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention
starts the delegates become super delegates which can take any action
they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention
the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table at each
delegate can take a scalpel (pen) to it and change any section or even
the entire document if they desire.
Section V of the Constitution, which covers the issue of
Constitutional Conventions and Amendments, gives absolutely no
guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and
who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the
entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide.
The current Congress could control the entire delegate selection.
States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to
choose delegates then what would be the method? Will the governor or
the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral
panel or blue ribbon commission?
Or could it be a plebiscite - a vote of the people? If so, then who
would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or
taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of
"enfranchisement" allow all citizens and potentially foreign nationals
to vote for this "special election?" There are no guidelines and
anything is possible.
And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be
exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called "proportional
representation" of all special interest groups - NGOs. Will some be
excluded because of "extreme" convictions? What will the criteria be?
All of these choices would be made by Congress - that same one now
controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now some have argued that no matter what such a convention does, it
still must be ratified by two thirds of the states, making it very
difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history
lesson is in order.
There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of
the nation - that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held
together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a
difficult time with commerce among themselves. So it was decided to
hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate
commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected,
some were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing
else beyond the commerce issue.
However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in
Philadelphia , they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades
and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had
created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention
was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced
the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.
Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Do you trust them to
produce a document of such magnitude? Or would they at least take care
of the present one? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to
foreign laws to assure our own are worthy. We live in an era when many
believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. They are
itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has
shown, they can do anything they want to it, including writing a
completely new document.
And there is more. Concerning the argument that whatever they do, the
states must ratify it - thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery,
consider this fact. The Articles of Confederation required that any
changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that
was the law of the land - until something else was put into place.
But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of
ratification, they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact
is, Article V of the new Constitution was literally in power - even
before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do
you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent?
What if the new document said ratification only required a vote of
Congress - or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that
could happen. So much for protection in the states.
These are the reasons why my colleagues and I looked at the Ohio
resolution with such horror. There has never been a worse time in the
nation's history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con
delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table
and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form
of government. Do Americans really want to risk that in these
uncertain times?
Also, the actual number of states said to already have ratified the
Con Con varies with each inquiry. Most records indicate that
thirty-two states have already passed resolutions to call for a Con
Con. But they did so in the mid 1970s. Those resolutions had remained
dormant for thirty years. How long is a resolution good for? Does it
last forever? Or does it expire with the legislature that passed it?
Most sources also indicate that three of those states have actually
passed resolutions to rescind their petitions. Other sources say 37
states have passed Con Con resolutions on a balanced budged issue and
that 10 states have passed resolutions to rescind. Regardless of the
numbers, proponents said they found no provision in Article V for
states to rescind a call for a Con Con after it was made. They say
it's like trying to "unring a bell." Instead they intend to push for
resolutions from a full 34 states and then challenge those rescinded
in court. That is not a fight any of us want to take on. The bottom
line is, the situation is very confused and only these points are
clear - there are no rules, no one can control what is debated and
therefore the effort to press for a Con Con is very dangerous.
So there we were, the night before the hearings in the Ohio House.
Already on the legislative calendar was a scheduled vote on the
resolution, waiting until they could get these pesky hearings out of
the way. Only they hadn't counted on the power of our grassroots
network.
My associate in Ohio , Chuck Michaelis, working with a network of
organizations, was able to get 10 people to converge on the hearing
room in the Ohio State House to testify against the resolution. No one
was there to testify on its behalf. Meanwhile, as the hearing was
underway, my American Policy Center issued a nationwide "Sledgehammer
Alert" urging activists to call and e-mail Ohio legislators. As the
hearing went on, hundreds of calls and e-mails began to pour in. By
the time the hearing was over, the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, Lou Blessing, announced that a terrible mistake had been
made and no vote would be taken on the resolution.
Undaunted, a defiant Senate, the next day filed the resolution there.
But within a few days it was clear the battle was over. In the first
week of January, the Ohio Legislature announced that the issue was
dead, at least in Ohio .
However, on the same day the Ohio legislature was issuing that
statement, we received word that Senator Emmett Hanger of Virginia
intends to introduce the very same resolution into the Virginia
legislature soon. The battle begins anew.
Update (Full News Release from American Policy Center ): On January
11, 2009, I received a threatening e-mail from a man named Bill
Walker. He is co-founder of a group called "Friends of the Article V
Convention," and one of the proponents of the Con Con. Walker said he
had "irrefutable" evidence that at least one of the documents we were
using for our anti-Con Con arguments was a fraud. He was refereeing to
a famous letter to Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly from former
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.
The Burger letter is a major and damming piece of evidence against a
call for a Con Con because is verifies our fears that states could not
control the subject matter discussed at the convention. In the letter,
Burger stated, "The Convention could make its own rules and set its
own agenda." This is damning evidence to those who continually assure
legislators that they can control the subject of a Con Con.
Walker obviously needed to discredit the letter for his own purposes,
and chose to threaten me in hopes of scarring me into stopping use of
it. In his e-mail to me he said, "Unless I have heard from you that
you are publicly refuting the letter and thus the assertions in it, I
intend to state you knew the letter was a fake all along." He also
threatened to "destroy..." my public credibility.
My first act was to verify with Phyllis Schlafly that she indeed had
the letter and that it was from Burger. She did and it was. She has
now posted it on the Eagle Forum web site.
APC's position is clear. We oppose a Con Con because the subject
matter cannot be controlled and we have no guarantee that we can win
state ratification fights if changes to the Constitution are offered.
We fear, instead that in today's climate of radical socialism and
American ignorance about the Constitution that this is the worst
possible time in our nation's history to start to mess with the
greatest governing document of all time. We will continue to oppose
any and all attempts to do that, no matter how noble the reason for
the call. Our intention is to protect the Constitution, not, as I've
been accused, to destroy it.
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the
Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available
online.
I LOVE MY COUNTRY I HATE MY GOVT
Personally, I think this debate is purley academic because Congress
will not perform their duty under the Constitution.
"The Congress…on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of
the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…"
Article V, USCON
At the same time, academic exercises like this can serve secondary
purposes. Just like last month we learned that a man could become
president without proving he meets the minimum Constitutional
standards to become president, we now know as a matter of fact, the
Congress can also legally ignore the Constitution.
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States , all be eligible to the office of President... "
Article 2, Section 4, USCON
The govt has trampled our precious constitution to death and has
breached the contract with We the People that authorizes its very
existence. By their own actions, or inactions, they have become a
defacto outlaw govt. They have no standing!
It's time we demand our state legislatures to form a new and less
imperfect nation.
Rich Martin
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --------- -----
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: rich martin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:04 AM
Subject: Fw: Re: [tomtancredoforpresident] The Battle to Stop the
Constitutional Convention
To: "0.91 articleV" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
I'M MAD, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With ACORN, La Raza, and Ohio Dem officials sitting on 20,000 suspect
voter registrations and other Dept heads releasing Joe the Plumber's
confidential information, this has been an incredibly, uncreditable
election.
Hope you didn't waste your time and gas to stand in line at one of
their polling places hoping the electoral system isn't a fraud.
Rich Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- On Mon, 1/26/09, Warren Ogren <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Warren Ogren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [tomtancredoforpresident] The Battle to Stop the
Constitutional Convention
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 8:16 PM
Rich,
Instead directing efforts to stop an idiotic Con Con, try to get an
honest and intelligent Congressman or two (Assuming we have such a
creature in our government.) to introduce legislation to amend the
original intent of that part of our constitution to limit the amount
of change to specific - pre agreed upon changes that are voted on and
agreed upon prior to any convention.
Warren Ogren
----- Original Message -----
From: rich martin
To: 1. Ann_Coulter_ Fan_Club ; 1. Moral_Conservatism ; 1.3
phantomtruth ; 1.3 tomtancredoforpresi dent ; 1.32 RonPaulforPresident
; 1.5 freedoms_cry_ litigators
Cc: 1.6 patriotpride1@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:47 PM
Subject: [tomtancredoforpres ident] The Battle to Stop the
Constitutional Convention
The Battle to Stop the Constitutional Convention
It takes 34 states to demand a ConCon, AND 39 states to ratify their
proposals into law.
Article V states "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds
of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing
amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several states,"
The idea that the fedl govt could control/select the participants of a
ConCon is ludicrous. Pure dribble. The idea of a ConCon is to get
something done that the feds have refused to do. Anything a ConCon
constisting of fedl public servants could do now easier than in a
ConCon setting.
Going from "each delegate can take a scalpel (pen) to it and change
any section or even the entire document if they desire," to "All of
these choices would be made by Congress - that same one now controlled
by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." These are out right scare tactics.
Even if this was snuck in, it would still require ratifiacation by 39
STATES.
The Founding Fathers were not nearly as stupid as some would have US
think. They wrote Article V to assure their creation didn't take
control over them.
Rich Martin
Editor, Slick eZine
________________________________
The Battle to Stop the Constitutional Convention
January 16, 2009
By Tom DeWeese
The phone call came to my home late on Tuesday night telling me that
the next morning the Ohio House of Representatives would be holding
hearings on a resolution to call for a Constitutional Convention. We
knew this was not good news. But the news was even worse. To our
shock, records indicated that if Ohio were to pass such a resolution,
it would be state number thirty-three. Only thirty-four states are
needed to officially kick the convention apparatus into gear. We were
only two states away! And we had only 18 hours to prepare for battle.
Now, sponsors of the resolution were not wild-eyed Leftists who sought
to purge the Constitution. Rather, they were patriotic Republican
conservatives who were vitally concerned about the massive spending
spree and bailouts taking place in Washington , D.C. The issue, said
the sponsors, was to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S
Constitution.
So why were we so concerned about the idea of a "Con Con?" Why were we
ready to fight to stop it, especially if it could lead to controlling
the outrageous waste of tax dollars in Washington ? The reason is
simple. These legislators were operating on very bad advice.
The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a
Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States'
hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do
in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to only discuss a
balance budget is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention
starts the delegates become super delegates which can take any action
they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention
the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table at each
delegate can take a scalpel (pen) to it and change any section or even
the entire document if they desire.
Section V of the Constitution, which covers the issue of
Constitutional Conventions and Amendments, gives absolutely no
guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and
who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the
entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide.
The current Congress could control the entire delegate selection.
States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to
choose delegates then what would be the method? Will the governor or
the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral
panel or blue ribbon commission?
Or could it be a plebiscite - a vote of the people? If so, then who
would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or
taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of
"enfranchisement" allow all citizens and potentially foreign nationals
to vote for this "special election?" There are no guidelines and
anything is possible.
And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be
exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called "proportional
representation" of all special interest groups - NGOs. Will some be
excluded because of "extreme" convictions? What will the criteria be?
All of these choices would be made by Congress - that same one now
controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now some have argued that no matter what such a convention does, it
still must be ratified by two thirds of the states, making it very
difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history
lesson is in order.
There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of
the nation - that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held
together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a
difficult time with commerce among themselves. So it was decided to
hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate
commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected,
some were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing
else beyond the commerce issue.
However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in
Philadelphia , they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades
and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had
created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention
was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced
the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.
Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Do you trust them to
produce a document of such magnitude? Or would they at least take care
of the present one? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to
foreign laws to assure our own are worthy. We live in an era when many
believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. They are
itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has
shown, they can do anything they want to it, including writing a
completely new document.
And there is more. Concerning the argument that whatever they do, the
states must ratify it - thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery,
consider this fact. The Articles of Confederation required that any
changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that
was the law of the land - until something else was put into place.
But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of
ratification, they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact
is, Article V of the new Constitution was literally in power - even
before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do
you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent?
What if the new document said ratification only required a vote of
Congress - or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that
could happen. So much for protection in the states.
These are the reasons why my colleagues and I looked at the Ohio
resolution with such horror. There has never been a worse time in the
nation's history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con
delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table
and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form
of government. Do Americans really want to risk that in these
uncertain times?
Also, the actual number of states said to already have ratified the
Con Con varies with each inquiry. Most records indicate that
thirty-two states have already passed resolutions to call for a Con
Con. But they did so in the mid 1970s. Those resolutions had remained
dormant for thirty years. How long is a resolution good for? Does it
last forever? Or does it expire with the legislature that passed it?
Most sources also indicate that three of those states have actually
passed resolutions to rescind their petitions. Other sources say 37
states have passed Con Con resolutions on a balanced budged issue and
that 10 states have passed resolutions to rescind. Regardless of the
numbers, proponents said they found no provision in Article V for
states to rescind a call for a Con Con after it was made. They say
it's like trying to "unring a bell." Instead they intend to push for
resolutions from a full 34 states and then challenge those rescinded
in court. That is not a fight any of us want to take on. The bottom
line is, the situation is very confused and only these points are
clear - there are no rules, no one can control what is debated and
therefore the effort to press for a Con Con is very dangerous.
So there we were, the night before the hearings in the Ohio House.
Already on the legislative calendar was a scheduled vote on the
resolution, waiting until they could get these pesky hearings out of
the way. Only they hadn't counted on the power of our grassroots
network.
My associate in Ohio , Chuck Michaelis, working with a network of
organizations, was able to get 10 people to converge on the hearing
room in the Ohio State House to testify against the resolution. No one
was there to testify on its behalf. Meanwhile, as the hearing was
underway, my American Policy Center issued a nationwide "Sledgehammer
Alert" urging activists to call and e-mail Ohio legislators. As the
hearing went on, hundreds of calls and e-mails began to pour in. By
the time the hearing was over, the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, Lou Blessing, announced that a terrible mistake had been
made and no vote would be taken on the resolution.
Undaunted, a defiant Senate, the next day filed the resolution there.
But within a few days it was clear the battle was over. In the first
week of January, the Ohio Legislature announced that the issue was
dead, at least in Ohio .
However, on the same day the Ohio legislature was issuing that
statement, we received word that Senator Emmett Hanger of Virginia
intends to introduce the very same resolution into the Virginia
legislature soon. The battle begins anew.
Update (Full News Release from American Policy Center ): On January
11, 2009, I received a threatening e-mail from a man named Bill
Walker. He is co-founder of a group called "Friends of the Article V
Convention," and one of the proponents of the Con Con. Walker said he
had "irrefutable" evidence that at least one of the documents we were
using for our anti-Con Con arguments was a fraud. He was refereeing to
a famous letter to Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly from former
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.
The Burger letter is a major and damming piece of evidence against a
call for a Con Con because is verifies our fears that states could not
control the subject matter discussed at the convention. In the letter,
Burger stated, "The Convention could make its own rules and set its
own agenda." This is damning evidence to those who continually assure
legislators that they can control the subject of a Con Con.
Walker obviously needed to discredit the letter for his own purposes,
and chose to threaten me in hopes of scarring me into stopping use of
it. In his e-mail to me he said, "Unless I have heard from you that
you are publicly refuting the letter and thus the assertions in it, I
intend to state you knew the letter was a fake all along." He also
threatened to "destroy..." my public credibility.
My first act was to verify with Phyllis Schlafly that she indeed had
the letter and that it was from Burger. She did and it was. She has
now posted it on the Eagle Forum web site.
APC's position is clear. We oppose a Con Con because the subject
matter cannot be controlled and we have no guarantee that we can win
state ratification fights if changes to the Constitution are offered.
We fear, instead that in today's climate of radical socialism and
American ignorance about the Constitution that this is the worst
possible time in our nation's history to start to mess with the
greatest governing document of all time. We will continue to oppose
any and all attempts to do that, no matter how noble the reason for
the call. Our intention is to protect the Constitution, not, as I've
been accused, to destroy it.
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the
Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available
online.
________________________________
________________________________
I LOVE MY COUNTRY I HATE MY GOVT
Personally, I think this debate is purley academic because Congress
will not perform their duty under the Constitution.
"The Congress…on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of
the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…"
Article V, USCON
At the same time, academic exercises like this can serve secondary
purposes. Just like last month we learned that a man could become
president without proving he meets the minimum Constitutional
standards to become president, we now know as a matter of fact, the
Congress can also legally ignore the Constitution.
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States , all be eligible to the office of President... "
Article 2, Section 4, USCON
The govt has trampled our precious constitution to death and has
breached the contract with We the People that authorizes its very
existence. By their own actions, or inactions, they have become a
defacto outlaw govt. They have no standing!
It's time we demand our state legislatures to form a new and less
imperfect nation.
Rich Martin
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --------- -----
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.14/1917 - Release Date:
1/26/2009 6:37 PM
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar
MARKETPLACE
________________________________
>From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News
Fashion News
What's the word on
fashion and style?
Check out the
Y! Groups blog
Stay up to speed
on all things Groups!
Group Charity
Loans that
change lives
Kiva.org
.
__,_._,___
--
This is the incredibly uncreditable election. Rich Martin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"APFN" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/APFN?hl=en
APFN-1 YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/join
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
APFN MSG BOARD:
`In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
http://disc.server.com/Indices/234999.html
APFN CONTENTS PAGE:
http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm
"RADIO YOUR WAY" APFN POGO NETWORK (( WOW!! ))
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of
good conscience to remain silent" -- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.apfn.net/POGO.HTM
Find elected officials, including the president, members of
Congress, governors, state legislators, local officials, and more.
http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/
APFN,
PMB 206, 7549 W. CACTUS RD. #104, PEORIA, AZ 85381
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
