Perhaps we should stop referring to it as "The Pledge of Allegiance". That is a phrase that has lost it's meaning.
How about calling it a "Compulsory Loyalty Oath"? PEACE Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer Franklin County Libertarian Party (614) 891-8841 P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115 "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable" John F. Kennedy ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Re: Govt Coerced Religious Practices by Kids > We need to abolish the government schools. > If states or localities are foolish enough to have them, the > fedgov has no authority over their government schools. > I agree with you that the US is a republic, not a democracy. > However, if taxpayers are paying for them and a large number > want their children to do something, so long as it doesn't harm any > innocent person and no child is compelled to participate in the activity, > they should be allowed to do so. > Nobody should be compelled to pray or worship otherwise against > their will. > However, we should keep on target: Abolish the government schools. > > Dave Macko > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "hrearden_hr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:48 PM > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Govt Coerced Religious Practices by Kids > > > --- 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] > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ 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/
