--- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
However, there is
> another plausible argument that the 98 percent of parents who do
want their
> children
> to pledge allegiance in the government schools to which many of
them are
> compelled to pay
> taxes or compelled to attend should not be deprived of doing so by
the two
> percent who
> find the practice offensive.
I do not find that argument plausible. The U.S.A. was not intended
to be a democracy. The U.S. was intended to be a republic governed
by the rule of law. Not what 98% necessarily want. What is the law
is what matters in this case. The Constitution is the supreme law of
the land. In 1954 a law was enacted to have the words "under God"
added to the pledge for the purpose of making it clear and thus
establishing that the nation (which includes the government) is one
that is subject to God. This law was thus unconstitutional because
it violated the establishment clause in the first amendment. The
government is legally disallowed from establishing that the nation
is subject to any religion. The belief that one is subject to God is
a particular religious belief that is called "monotheism". The U.S.
government can not legally state that the nation is a montheist
nation. To do so is an attempt by the government to establish a
religious view in and of itself. It is thus unconstitutional for the
government to have children taught or recite that the nation is one
under God.
With respect to the idea that 98% should not be deprived of getting
what they want by 2%, suppose 98% of the people in a community were
Jew haters and didn't want the 15 of the community who are Jewish
and the other 1% who are Arab Muslims to send their children to the
government school they also pay for and they want Christian prayers
recited in the school. Suppose 98% of a community want the
government school to teach their children that some people should be
discriminated against on the bases of their race.
$
> In conclusion, we need to encourage Christians, Moslems, Jews,
Randians,
> other atheists
> and agnostics to abolish the government schools, since we will not
restore
> liberty as long
> as they continue to exist.
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:05 PM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Govt Coerced Religious Practices by Kids
>
>
> The judge did the right thing. Until the words "under god" which
> weren't added to the pledge until the "Red Scare" years of the
50's is
> removed, it has no place in public schools. I agree that this is a
> good way to approach people to take their kids out of public
schools.
> They can keep their religion out of my government, and in return,
> I'll keep my government out of their religion.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > This ruling provides an excellent opportunity to outreach to
> > Christians and other theists to take their children out of the
> > government schools and to abolish the government school
> > system. Unfortunately, too few Libertarians and libertarians are
> > psychologically well-suited to outreach to Christians.
> > If the decision is reversed, it will also provide an excellent
> > opportunity for L(l)ibertarians to outreach to atheists and
agnostics
> > to do likewise with their children.
> >
> > For life and liberty,
> > David Macko
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:31 AM
> > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Govt Coerced Religious Practices by
Kids
> >
> >
> > The topic WAS the US Supreme Court deciding if
> > it's ok for govt to coerce religious practices
> > by children in 'public' (govt) schools; specifically,
> > reciting the words 'under God' as a class during
> > the plege of allegiance.
> >
> > The legitimacy of the 14th amendment to the US
> > Constitution can certainly be attacked. That is
> > also true for any part or all of the US Constitution.
> > However, the US Supreme Court professes to decide
> > cases based on 'constitutionality' They traditionally
> > reject appeals that attack constitutional legitimacy;
> > as in the 13th amendment for example. So, like it or
> > not, the 'school plege recital' case may be decided
> > based on BOTH 1st and 14th amendment arguments.
> >
> > Why are some SO eager to have GOVT coerce their religion
> > upon those who did NOT join their church? Jesus would
> > NEVER have asked Ceaser for that kind of 'help'
> >
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV
> > via Yellow Pages at www.PeerCast.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is an update of the classic research by the late
> > Constitutional
> > > scholar,
> > > Dan Smoot which proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was never
> > legally
> > > ratified
> > > and describes the horrendous consequences, including the
growth of
> > the
> > > federal
> > > government and the severe erosion of our liberties.
> > > It is somewhat long but very worthwhile reading. I have
deleted
> > the
> > > repetitions
> > > and put the three parts of the article in proper order.
> > >
> > > For life and liberty,
> > > David Macko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!
> > > > Part 1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By Albert Burns
> > > > July 8, 2005
> > > > NewsWithViews.com
> > > >
> > > > "Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into
abuse,
> > the
> > > > worthies of our country have secured its independence by the
> > establishment
> > > > of a Constitution and form of government for our nation,
> > calculated to
> > > > prevent as well as to correct abuse." -- Thomas Jefferson to
the
> > > > Washington Tammany Society, 1809.
> > > >
> > > > At a time when the Founding Fathers of this country,
and the
> > > > Constitution they established, are continually being
denigrated
> > and "mean
> > > > mouthed" by educators, the mass media and others, it cannot
be
> > repeated
> > > > TOO OFTEN that the Constitution is a limitation on the
> > GOVERNMENT, and NOT
> > > > on individuals. It does NOT, and was not intended to,
prescribe
> > or
> > > > proscribe the conduct of private citizens, but only the
CONDUCT
> > of
> > > > government and those to whom governmental power had been
granted.
> > In its
> > > > most basic aspects, it is NOT a charter for government, but
> > rather a
> > > > charter of PROTECTION of citizens FROM their government.
> > > >
> > > > The basic Constitution, itself, was a statement of
strictly
> > limited
> > > > governmental powers. Then the great Bill of Rights was added
to
> > even
> > > > further define what the government COULD NOT DO!!!
Amendments 1
> > through 9
> > > > specify certain things which the government was NOT allowed
to do
> > and then
> > > > the incredible Tenth Amendment which says, in effect, "If we
> > forgot
> > > > anything else, you CAN'T do that EITHER!" They did everything
> > they could
> > > > to protect future generations.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, as always throughout human history, there
> > arose those
> > > > who were determined to gain more and more centralized power.
At
> > the end of
> > > > the Civil War (the War Between The States for you
Southerners)
> > the time
> > > > was ripe for a major move in that direction. In 1865, the
13th,
> > 14th and
> > > > 15th Amendments to the Constitution were introduced in
Congress
> > by the
> > > > Republican Party (yes, the Republican Party was at it even
back
> > in 1865!).
> > > > The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery was immediately
> > ratified by the
> > > > required three quarters of the States including all the
southern
> > States
> > > > except Mississippi and Texas.
> > > >
> > > > The 14th Amendment was never legal nor Constitutional
from
> > its very
> > > > inception. The Constitution mandates that proposed amendments
> > must be
> > > > approved by two thirds of both houses of Congress. In
December of
> > 1865,
> > > > the radicals in control of Congress refused to allow the
legally
> > elected
> > > > Representatives and Senators from the southern States to be
> > seated. Hence,
> > > > at that point, Congress itself was unconstitutional. However,
> > even
> > > > disregarding that technicality, when the vote of those who
WERE
> > seated as
> > > > part of the House was taken, out of 184 Representatives,
only 120
> > voted in
> > > > favor of the resolution. Two thirds of the 184 would have
> > required 123 to
> > > > vote in favor. In spite of the failure to get sufficient
votes to
> > > > constitutionally pass the resolution, the leadership of
Congress
> > > > arbitrarily declared the Resolution passed. Congress then
> > submitted the
> > > > 14th Amendment to all the states for ratification, INCLUDING
the
> > States
> > > > which had already been DENIED representation in the Congress!
> > > >
> > > > The 14th Amendment was soundly defeated when it was
rejected
> > by all
> > > > but one of the southern States and all of the so-
called "border"
> > States.
> > > > Iowa and Massachusetts had also failed to ratify it by the
> > beginning of
> > > > March, 1867. The radicals had only 21 ratifications of the 28
> > needed. What
> > > > to do?
> > > >
> > > > Those in power in the Republican Party which controlled
the
> > Congress
> > > > at that time rammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867.
This
> > > > incredible abuse of Congressional power simply abolished the
> > legal
> > > > governments of all ten of the southern States which had
refused
> > to ratify
> > > > the 14th Amendment and placed all of them under military
> > dictatorship. The
> > > > generals placed in command of these dictatorships were
required
> > by the
> > > > Reconstruction Act to prepare the "rolls of voters" for
> > conventions which
> > > > would formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Anyone
who
> > had served
> > > > in the Confederate Army was denied the right to vote or to
hold
> > office -
> > > > in spite of presidential proclamations by both Lincoln and
> > Johnson
> > > > granting amnesty to southern veterans who would swear
allegiance
> > to the
> > > > U.S. The Reconstruction Act provided that when these "new"
> > legislatures
> > > > ratified the 14th Amendment they would be admitted to the
union.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, this illegal Congress - for purposes of
> > excluding
> > > > Representatives and Senators from southern states -
considered
> > those
> > > > states OUT of the union. For purposes of getting the 14th
> > Amendment
> > > > ratified, this Congress considered the states IN the union.
When
> > they
> > > > refused to ratify the amendment, the Congress simply
abolished
> > their
> > > > governments and set up "reconstruction" legislatures,
controlled
> > by
> > > > northern military power. Now these states were again treated
as
> > OUT of the
> > > > union until they ratified the 14th Amendment - although the
> > Constitution
> > > > clearly requires that only states which are IN the union may
act
> > on
> > > > amendments.
> > > >
> > > > By July, 1868, Iowa and Massachusetts and six of
> > the "reconstructed"
> > > > states had ratified this 14th Amendment which would have
added 8
> > states to
> > > > the original 21 states for a total of 29 ratifications.
HOWEVER,
> > the
> > > > legislators of two northern states had been so incensed by
the
> > whole
> > > > outrageous manner in which this amendment was being forced
> > through that
> > > > they had RESCINDED their previous ratifications. (Illinois
> > rescinded on
> > > > January 15, 1868 and New Jersey on March 24, 1868.)
Therefore,
> > there were
> > > > only 27 ratifications when 28 were required.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On July 20, 1868, then Secretary of State William Seward
> > proclaimed
> > > > that 3/4 of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment IF the
> > legislatures
> > > > in the six former confederate states were authentically
organized
> > and IF
> > > > Illinois and New Jersey were NOT allowed to rescind their
> > ratifications.
> > > > The radical Congress did not like this equivocation and on
July
> > 21, 1868,
> > > > Congress passed a joint resolution simply DECLARING that the
14th
> > > > Amendment was a part of the Constitution and directing
Seward to
> > declare
> > > > it legally ratified.
> > > > Such is a small part of the sordid history of the 14th
> > Amendment as
> > > > researched by constitutional scholar, Dan Smoot. In our next
> > column, we
> > > > will examine WHY the radicals of the time (and since) were so
> > dead set on
> > > > getting this change introduced into our Constitution and WHY
it
> > is
> > > > essential that we recognize the consequences to all of us.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!
> > > > PART 2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By Albert Burns
> > > > July 20, 2005
> > > > NewsWithViews.com
> > > >
> > > > In our previous article on this subject, we discussed
the
> > incredible
> > > > manner through which the 14th Amendment was maneuvered into
the
> > > > Constitution The ostensible reason why the Republican
radicals
> > worked so
> > > > hard to get the 14th Amendment to the Constitution DECLARED
as
> > ratified
> > > > (however spurious that ratification might be) was to
guarantee
> > the freedom
> > > > and rights of former slaves. However, history has shown that
to
> > have been
> > > > of negligible concern to those in power.
> > > >
> > > > It is interesting to note that Alexis DeToqueville, in
his
> > book
> > > > "Democracy In America", published in 1835, wrote that racial
> > prejudice was
> > > > stronger in the North than in the South. He stated: "The
> > prejudice of race
> > > > appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished
slavery
> > than in
> > > > those where it still exists."
> > > >
> > > > Northern states enacted discriminatory "black codes"
long
> > before they
> > > > came into being in ANY southern state. Illinois, in 1848,
Oregon,
> > in 1857,
> > > > Indiana, in 1862, all had laws severely restricting the
rights of
> > blacks
> > > > and mulattos who were not allowed to enter into legal
contracts,
> > could not
> > > > testify in court against whites, were not allowed to
immigrate,
> > legally,
> > > > into these states or if they did come in had to post a $1000
bond
> > to
> > > > guarantee that they would behave "properly."
> > > >
> > > > Other northern states and cities had similar laws.
Northern
> > > > newspapers such as the Philadelphia Daily News, the Daily
Chicago
> > Times,
> > > > and even the New York Times were printing blatantly racist
> > editorials.
> > > > Some of the radical legislators in Congress who forced
through
> > the 14th
> > > > Amendment had previously supported the discriminatory laws in
> > their own
> > > > home states. No, Southern racism was NOT the primary reason
for
> > the 14th
> > > > Amendment!
> > > >
> > > > Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the document
declaring
> > that the
> > > > 14th Amendment was officially a part of the Constitution,
efforts
> > began to
> > > > be made to use Section 1, of the amendment, as a weapon to
> > destroy the
> > > > rights of the individual states or the citizens therein.
> > > >
> > > > Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "All persons
born or
> > > > naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction
> > thereof,
> > > > are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they
> > reside. No
> > > > State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> > privileges or
> > > > immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State
> > deprive
> > > > any person of life, liberty or property, without due process
of
> > law; nor
> > > > deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection
> > of the
> > > > laws." (Emphasis added)
> > > >
> > > > As previously stated, the Constitution was designed to
> > regulate the
> > > > power and activities of the FEDERAL government. The Bill of
> > Rights was
> > > > added to the Constitution to further spell out the activities
> > which the
> > > > FEDERAL government could NOT DO! Amendments 9 and 10 were
> > deliberately
> > > > added to PROTECT the States and their affairs FROM
interference
> > by the
> > > > federal government. For instance, it was universally
recognized
> > that while
> > > > Congress could NOT make any law respecting the establishment
of
> > religion,
> > > > several of the individual STATES which ratified the
Constitution
> > AND the
> > > > Bill of Rights DID have established STATE religions.
> > > >
> > > > With the addition of the 14th Amendment, groups and
> > individuals began
> > > > to file cases in federal courts claiming that this amendment
GAVE
> > the
> > > > federal government AUTHORITY to supervise the activities of
both
> > state and
> > > > local governments - an exact reversal of the original intent
of
> > the
> > > > Founding Fathers. The first case which advanced this doctrine
> > reached the
> > > > Supreme Court in 1873. That Supreme Court held that the 14th
> > Amendment did
> > > > NOT grant such authority to the federal government.
> > > >
> > > > There was a clear intent in succeeding years to
transform
> > our
> > > > "federal" system into a "centralized" government system by
> > transferring
> > > > all rights and powers of the individual States to Washington.
> > Those who
> > > > wanted to achieve this result kept bringing cases attacking
> > states' rights
> > > > to the Supreme Court in an effort to get the Court to change
its
> > position
> > > > on this vital point. According to a study called "The
> > Constitution of the
> > > > United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation:
> > Annotations of
> > > > Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to
June
> > 30, 1952,"
> > > > also known as Senate Document No. 170, the position of the
Court
> > began to
> > > > weaken at the beginning of the 1900s, and by the 1930s the
> > Supreme Court
> > > > had begun to, tentatively, assume jurisdiction under the 14th
> > Amendment to
> > > > act as "censor upon...legislation of the States."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of
the
> > Supreme
> > > > Court by Dwight Eisenhower, the Court began to simply USURP
power
> > under
> > > > the "equal protection" phrase of the 14th Amendment, to do
> > ANYTHING
> > > > desired by a majority of the Court. The "equal protection"
> > doctrine has
> > > > been used by the Court to impose FEDERAL mandates upon the
States
> > in such
> > > > areas as education, voting rights, abortion, religious
> > instruction, labor
> > > > disputes, and the list goes on and on. Precisely the kind of
> > judicial
> > > > tyranny which Thomas Jefferson warned of when he described
> > federal judges
> > > > as those who would be "constantly working underground to
> > undermine the
> > > > foundations of our confederated fabric."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In our next article we will examine how previous Supreme
> > Courts
> > > > viewed such usurpation and some of the consequences of that
> > usurpation to
> > > > our current society.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!
> > > > PART 3
> > > >
> > > > By Albert Burns
> > > > July 24, 2005
> > > > NewsWithViews.com
> > > >
> > > > In the early 1950s, the U.S. Senate commissioned a
study of
> > U.S.
> > > > Supreme Court Cases, paid for by Congress and published by
the
> > Government
> > > > Printing Office. That document which we have previously
mentioned
> > was The
> > > > Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and
> > Interpretation:
> > > > Annotations of Cases Decided by The Supreme Court Of The
United
> > States to
> > > > June 3, 1952. It was published as Senate Document 170.
> > > >
> > > > Study of that document by Constitutional scholar, Dan
Smoot,
> > revealed
> > > > that the Supreme Court had actually converted the Bill of
Rights
> > into a
> > > > weapon to destroy the powers of state governments and for
> > abridging or
> > > > abolishing the rights of our citizens. This was done,
primarily,
> > through
> > > > claiming that the never properly ratified 14th Amendment
> > had "absorbed"
> > > > the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the
Constitution)
> > making
> > > > them applicable to state governments!
> > > >
> > > > Several earlier decisions, the first in 1833, by the
Supreme
> > Court
> > > > had emphatically stated that the limitations on governmental
> > power
> > > > contained in the Bill of Rights applied strictly to the
federal
> > government
> > > > and did NOT apply, in any way, to state governments. A simple
> > reading of
> > > > those first ten amendments makes that abundantly clear to any
> > honest
> > > > reader.
> > > >
> > > > In our previous column, we mentioned that the first
time a
> > U.S.
> > > > Supreme Court considered the implications of the 14th
Amendment
> > was in
> > > > 1873. In that case, the Supreme Court, as recorded in
Document
> > 170 ruled
> > > > that the real purpose of the 14th Amendment was: "...to
> > centralize in the
> > > > hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto
exercised
> > by the
> > > > States....This expansive alteration of the Federal System
was to
> > have been
> > > > achieved by converting the rights of the citizens of each
State
> > as of the
> > > > date of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment into
privileges
> > and
> > > > immunities of United States citizenship...." That court ruled
> > that would
> > > > have been "to transfer the security and protection of all the
> > civil
> > > > rights...to the Federal Government...to bring within the
power of
> > Congress
> > > > the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging
> > exclusively to the
> > > > states" and to "constitute this court a PERPETUAL CENSOR
upon the
> > > > legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own
> > citizens, with
> > > > authority to nullify such as it did not approve...."
(Emphasis
> > added.) The
> > > > jurists of that court could clearly see what the
implications of
> > the 14th
> > > > Amendment were.
> > > >
> > > > In 1877, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed the
> > constitutional
> > > > doctrine from the 1873 case. It was a case dealing with state
> > power to
> > > > regulate rates charged for the transportation of grain. In
this
> > 1877 case,
> > > > the court stated: "We know that this power may be abused;
> > but....for
> > > > protection against abuses by (state) legislatures the people
must
> > resort
> > > > to the polls, NOT TO THE COURTS." (Emphasis added)
> > > >
> > > > By 1905, the Supreme Court had heard and decided at
least
> > twenty more
> > > > cases involving the 14th Amendment, ALWAYS reaffirming the
fact
> > that it
> > > > DID NOT extend the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to
state
> > > > governments. In 1905, the Supreme Court finally overturned a
> > STATE law
> > > > (Lochner vs. New York) on the grounds that the law violated
> > the "due
> > > > process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
> > > >
> > > > It was the beginning of the end for our original
> > Constitutional
> > > > system. In highly prophetic words, Justice John Marshall
Harlan
> > dissented,
> > > > saying: "No evils arising from ...[state] legislation could
be
> > more far
> > > > reaching than those that might come to our system of
government
> > if the
> > > > judiciary, abandoning the sphere assigned to it by the
> > fundamental law,
> > > > should enter the domain of legislation, and upon grounds
merely
> > of justice
> > > > or reason or wisdom annum statute that had received the
sanction
> > of the
> > > > people's representatives."
> > > >
> > > > In 1925, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gitlow vs.
New
> > York, fully
> > > > implemented the doctrine that the 14th Amendment
had "absorbed"
> > the Bill
> > > > of Rights and extended the prohibitions of the First
Amendment to
> > include
> > > > state governments. This gave the Supreme Court the power to
> > supervise the
> > > > legislation of state governments. In that case, the Court
> > stated: "For
> > > > present purposes WE MAY AND DO ASSUME that freedom of speech
and
> > of the
> > > > press - which are protected by the First Amendment from
> > abridgement by
> > > > Congress - are among the fundamental PERSONAL rights
> > and "liberties"
> > > > protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment
> > from
> > > > impairment by the States." (Emphasis added)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Finally, in a burst of arrogance, in 1954, in the Brown
vs.
> > Topeka
> > > > case, the Warren Supreme Court, using the 14th
> > Amendment "absorption"
> > > > doctrine, abandoned the principle of Stare Decisis (that the
> > court should
> > > > be guided by previous Supreme Court decisions) and
fabricated a
> > wholly new
> > > > doctrine: that the Supreme Court could CHANGE the
Constitution at
> > will,
> > > > taking no regard for law, the clear meaning of words or
former
> > precedent.
> > > >
> > > > From the date of that decision, American citizens
have
> > not really
> > > > had a Constitution at all. Until we, the people of this
country,
> > force
> > > > Congress to use its power to rein in the Supreme Court, our
> > Constitution
> > > > is WHATEVER an oligarchy of NINE men and women in Washington
SAY
> > it is!!!
> > > >
> > > > © 2005 Albert Burns - All Rights Reserved
> > > >
> > > > Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
> > > >
> > > > E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Albert Burns was born 1924 and brought up in Elizabeth,
NJ.
> > Enlisted
> > > > in the Air Force in September, 1942. Sent to Boca Raton,
Florida
> > to begin
> > > > Officer training. Graduated as a Second Lieutenant. Attended
> > University of
> > > > Arizona to study Civil Engineering.
> > > >
> > > > Albert moved to Lima, Peru as Assistant Supervisor of
> > Construction,
> > > > with the U.S. Foreign Buildings Division of the State
Department.
> > Worked
> > > > on the construction of the new U.S. Embassy Office Building
in
> > Lima. After
> > > > completion, he was transferred to Mexico City to work on the
> > construction
> > > > of the new Embassy.
> > > >
> > > > Joined the John Birch Society in 1967. Was a chapter
leader,
> > section
> > > > leader and eventually served for several years as the
Coordinator
> > in
> > > > Hawaii. Once he got on the Internet about ten years ago, he
began
> > writing
> > > > articles in an effort to alert fellow Americans to what was
> > taking place
> > > > in America which the vast majority were unaware of. He has
been
> > studying
> > > > and writing, ever since. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
