Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books





Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

20 years



S170108ince we seem to have started the year of 2017 with a constitutional tutorial on America's right to seek the face of God in any manner we choose, and the Constitution's prohibition of government to create any laws respecting the establishment of a State religion (which President John Adams did in the Colony of Connecticut in 1797), nor prohibit the People from worshipping God (whether that deity be Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or Allah, Athena, Buddha, Ceres, Khuda, Kami, Olympic, Vulcan, Woden, Zeus, or if you're so inclined, Ham Sandwich); or prohibiting the free exercise of that religion. In addition, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to to peaceably assemble. Why is it that the social progressives always forget that word:"peaceably"? Could it be because burning the American flag is an act of violence, and because you can't burn the Stars and Stripes peaceably?

By the way, no where in my pocket US Constitution, nor in the 40" X 50" framed Constitution on the wall in my office at home is there any provision which allows anyone—citizen, non-citizen, or illegal alien—to burn an American flag as they protest their contempt for the United States of America and the People who made it great.

If you were one of those miscreants in the aftermath of the 2016 election who were rioting in the streets and unconstitutionally burning Old Glory, it wasn't the lack of an honest election you were protesting, it was the inability of the communist left in the United States government to steal it. Had that happened, the leftwingnuts would have had a parade instead of a protest. In fact, in all likelihood, your next protest will likely be against a much more tyrannical government—Hillary Clinton's—that most likely will result in your incarceration in a Caribbean tourist haven called Gitmo. You see, there's only one really bad thing about the future. You're living it before you realize you're there. And, once you arrive, you can't go back.

Oh, by the way, before I forget. Flag burning is not "speech." Flag burning is "an act." The words, "I'm going to beat the crap out of you," are words. Actually beating the crap out of you is an act. Threatening to beat someone up may or may not be construed as a crime, depending on the violence threatened and the reason the threat was made in the first place. Misdemeanor or felonious assault will always get you arrested, and the degree of the assault determines the penalty. Once we get the social progressives who hate the rule of law out of the federal court system, the judiciary can, once again, protect the Constitution of the United States.

First, back to protecting Jesus Christ in America. The Union government decided to intrude on the First Amendment in 1862 in order to help them defeat the Confederacy. To accomplish this, they enacted a law the Constitution forbade them create, and applied it in a manner the Constitution denied them from doing. This egregious breach by the Jacobin members of the US Supreme Court and the Jacobin in the White House, Abraham Lincoln, should have led to the impeachment and removal of all of them.

The unconstitutional law was the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of July 8, 1862, signed into law by Lincoln. Why, unconstitutional? Because the 1st Amendment of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That unconstitutional law gave rise to a Supreme Court case, Reynolds v United States [98 US (8 Otto.) 145]. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law was a political law aimed at forcing Utah Territory to remain loyal to the Union by criminally-prosecuting Mormons with more than one wife—if Utah broke with the Union and joined the Confederacy, or attempted to remain completely neutral by disavowing allegiance to either. Utah remained loyal to the Union, and Abraham Lincoln, who signed Morrill into law and his successor, Andrew Johnson, honored the deal. When Gen. Ulysses S. Grant (whose real name was Hiram Ulysses Grant [like Harry S. Truman, who had no middle name beginning with an "S"]) was elected President, he was fed up with polygamy after being forced to endure polygamists throughout the Civil War. It offended Grant that Brigham Young had 20 wives. He backed the new anti-polygamy law in 1869 that defined a "church" by traditional Christian norms, thereby excluding the Mormonism as a church under the traditional understanding of the word. Grant gave assurances that he would enforce the prohibition of The Church of Latter Day Saints with guns and the gavel.

In 1870 Grant sent US Marshals to Utah to enforce the law. The Utah delegation in Congress protested Grant's enforcing an unconstitutional law which violated the 1st Amendment. Utah told Congress the State would continue to practice polygamy in spite of the law since Congress had no authority, under the 1st Amendment, to define what was, or was not, a church per the 1st Amendment. The following year Grant appointed a former US Marshal and the former head of Utah's Republican Party, George Woods as the Governor of Utah Territory.

The high court decided, the 1st Amendment notwithstanding, that it had the right to deprive the people in Utah Territory the right to multiple wives under the Morriill Anti-Bigamy Act. The Mormons were right. The United States government did just that—they made it up as they went along. (Not only did the law, proffered by social progressive Jacobin Senator Justin Smith Morrill [R-VT], outlaw polygamous marriages, it also limited the amount of wealth any church—Christian, Jewish, Mormon or Catholic (with emphasis on Catholic), or any nonprofit organization (charity) in the United States could legally possess That amount, in the Morrill Act, could not to exceed $50,000, risking the seizure of the religious organization or charity's assets.

Even more important, and more criminal by the Justices of the 1878 Supreme Court, is what the Justices did next to make Morrill appear to be Constitutional. According to the Constitution, neither Congress nor the courts could amend the Constitution by fiat. Morrill was amended again in 1887. This amendment disincorporated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In 1890, with the LDS Manifesto the Mormons officially discontinued the practice of polygamy, discouraging all LDS members from practicing polygamy. .

The US Supreme Court did something in 1878 that should have forced the impeachment of all nine Supreme Court Justices: Chief Justice Morrison Waite and Associate Justices Joseph Bradley, Nathan Clifford, John Harlan, Ward Hunt, Samuel Miller, William Strong, Noah Swayne and a hesitant, but concurring Stephen Field. In a 9 to 0 ruling, the high court voted to incorporate a Jan., 1801 personal letter from President-elect Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association as though it was a "royal decree" with the standing of law. All Jefferson actually did was reassure the Baptists that he would not follow John Adam's constitutional misstep of promoting Congregationalism (Adams' chosen faith) as a national religion solely because the Adams family followed their doctrines.

Shortly after the Election of 1800, three Baptist ministers: Nehemiah Dodge, Stephen Nelson and Ephraim Robbins of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Jefferson complaining that the Connecticut State government ruled that religious liberty was not immutable. In their letter, they raised the question of religious liberty under the Jefferson Administration. In his reply, all Jefferson intended to do was reassure the Baptists that religious liberty was an inherent right which neither government nor the courts could alter. The inherency of the Bill of Rights is perpetually guaranteed unless two-thirds of the States propose an amendment to expunge or modify that right, and three-fourths of the States ratify the proposed amendment.

When the Federalist legislature in Connecticut ruled that the 1st Amendment was not immutable, the Baptists sued in federal court. Adams' Attorney General, Charles Lee, a Federalist appointed by President George Washington (and retained by Adams), chose not to defend the 1st Amendment, and the Danbury Baptist Association lost their effort to have the 1st Amendment defined as an inherent right. In 1798, the 5th Congress enacted the Aliens and Sedition Act which shredded what was left of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights by forbidding citizens to speak out against the President of the United States or his policies. It appeared the Constitution of the United States was so fragile it was sustainable by its own verbiage for only one decade—until America's first corrupt president, John Adams, and the Federalist Congress expunged the 1st Amendment. It was restored with the Virginia Resolution [1798] (written by James Madison and enacted by the Virginia Assembly) and the Kentucky Resolution [1799] written by Thomas Jefferson and enacted by the Kentucky Assembly which nullified the federal Aliens and Sedition Act of 1797 by forbidding the central government of the United States to enact laws using powers "...not delegated to it by the Constitution."

The crux of Jefferson's reply to Dodge, Nelson and Robbins was in the form of a metaphor to assure the Danbury pastors that the Bill of Rights prohibited Connecticut from interfering in church business—or the religious affairs of their congregations: "...Believing with you," Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists, "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, but that legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson added: "Congress is thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive [is] authorized only to execute their acts..."

Since the Constitution gives only Congress the right to legislate, neither the President of the United States nor his minions in Senate-confirmed cabinet posts can create law-binding proclamations, executive or secretarial orders, presidential memorandums, presidential decision directives (which are usually all classified as Secret, Top Secret, or other designates so secret only those using them know the designations. Imagine what would have happened to John Adams had he chosen to use quill & ink and a bevy of pony express riders to create his own laws by royal fiat (like Obama's pen and cell phone) and his Presidential Memorandums because not even the Federalist Congress refused to pass his legislation, or get the States to nullify Adams' unconstitutional laws

(Note for those of you who don't know this constitutional tidbit: Constitutionally, Executive Orders are interdepartmental memos to employees of the Executive Branch and are binding only on those employees. The President has no legislative powers. He cannot issue any directives that obligate the people of the United States to obey him. Yet every president from Franklin D. Roosevelt has done precisely that. And every law or executive decree that does so violates the Constitution.

On Aug. 10, 1997 President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order banning smoking in all government office buildings throughout the United States. Then House Speaker Newt Gingrich sent a curt note to the White House advising President Clinton that Executive Orders were binding only on the Executive branch and that Clinton had no authority to dictate policy to the legislative branch—which Gingrich replied, he had no intention of complying with Clinton's Executive Dept. smoking ban.) Nonetheless, presidents use Executive Orders to tweak laws with provisions that Congressmen would loose their seats for including in the legislation when the laws were enacted—with Congress acting like the White House has the authority to implement draconian changes in the rule of law to expedite the globalist agenda of the New World Order. The president's party let's the occupant of the Oval Office carry the water by creating illegal laws through Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums.That way, when the next election cycle comes around, they can pretend they aghast that a President would be so presumptive to assume for himself powers not bestowed on him by the Constitution.

The people aren't inhibited. The lawmakers are. Therefore, in this context, the federal courts—which now believe it's their right to legislate from the bench—are also prohibited from infringing on your right to worship God as you see fit. The role of the federal courts is to protect the right of the American people to worship God, not to determine ways in which that right can be denied or restricted because a vocal minority disagrees with those doctrines.

Prohibiting a Christian from openly worshipping Jesus Christ because it offends an atheist or is viewed as blasphemy by a Muslim is not a right possessed by any court or any judge—nor any Congressman or Senator—in this land (nor the guy in the Oval Office with a cell phone and pen). The Constitution is very specific in this area. Any federal judge who trips over the wording of the 1st Amendment should not be allowed to remain on the bench. And any federal or State legislator who thinks he or she can legislate away an inherent right from God—the path to both personal and national salvation—needs not only to be removed from office, but imprisoned for sedition or expelled from the United States for life.

Jefferson offered the Baptist ministers his personal opinion that no State legislature could enact a law which would, or even could, interfere with any man's right to to worship God in whatever manner he chose, since those rights are inherent and God-granted. Jefferson opined that the Constitution placed a wall of separation between the State and the church, thus preventing John Adams from creating a "president-ordained State religion."

Remember this: Jefferson's words were not extracted from a law or a legal document, or a principle of law. His words were personal assurances in a personal letter. No law. No Presidential Proclamation. No Executive Order. No congressional action that could be construed as Jefferson attempting to carve his words into law.

What we had in this instance was the United States Supreme Court (still under the dictatorial influence of the social progressive Jacobins, in order to restrict religious liberty in the United States) simply making it up. The Justices created law out of wholecloth. They used a personal assurance from Jefferson to a group of worried ministers that their right to religious freedom was an inherent right that could not be abridged by a president, a legislative body, or the highest court in the land. What the Supreme Court did in 1878 was a criminal act. They belied a nine-word phrase in a personal letter to not only be law, but a phrase strong enough to abrogate an inherent right by using a personal remark in a private letter to erase religious liberty in the United States of America. .

The United States Supreme Court manipulated that private conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association specifically to give themselves the right to limit religious liberty whenever the "free exercise of religion" interferes with the agenda of government—as it does today with the rise of Islam around the world and a theological quagmire known as Christianity and Judaism.

Hidden in the dusty pages of history is the deliberate manipulation of the US Constitution by the United States Supreme Court because they found one aspect of religious freedom "personally distasteful." And, while the First Amendment makes it clear that "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." the high court did so anyway—and continue to do so today. .

In coupling the Danbury Letter into codified law, the Justices changed the First Amendment of the Constitution, making it easy to justify their ruling that the government can enact laws regulating national uniformity even if those laws conflict with religious liberty. The court defended its erasing a good portion of the First Amendment by saying "...permitting a certain class of people to willfully defy the nation's laws without repercussions in the name of religious liberty would permit citizens to become a law unto themselves, and lead to the existence of a government in name only."

If the federal courts have the legal authority to abrogate your right—and mine—to worship God and pray in Jesus name as we see fit, then they can also forbid us from speaking out politically. And, they could also ban radio and TV newscasters from revealing the sins of elected officials and most of all, they could ban bloggers from revealing what the licensed broadcast medias are afraid to report (over fear that the Federal Communications Commission would not renew, or might cancel, their broadcast licenses). The "free" press was taken over by the free enterprise system in the early 20th century when the barons of banking felt the need to conceal their efforts to remove the States from the equation of power in the federal government in order to create a privately-owned central bank—owned by them—and remove the voice of the States in the management of the nation (although the States created the central government as their agent before the courts of the world).

Today, the Danbury Letter is used to prevent students—not teachers—from bringing a Bible to school, wearing a crucifix in an American school, wearing T-Shirts emblazoned with pictures of Jesus Christ, His name or, acknowledging any Christian holiday or feast day. At Christmas, most schools in America are now forbidden to have Christmas displays—particularly those with signs that say "Merry Christmas." In fact, in most schools, students are forbidden to say, "Merry Christmas." Menorrahs are verboten. If a Christian girl came to class wearing a nun's habit, she would be sent home. Yet, if a Muslim girl comes to school wearing a burqa and al-hijab, she would never be sent home. Nor would a Muslim male student coming to class carrying the Qu'ran and a prayer rug. The only religion in the United States that it's government is determined to discriminate against is Christianity. And, strangely, no one ever thinks to ask why.

One hundred twenty-eight years after the 1878 political decision by the Jacobin Waite Court, the princes of industry began stirring the witches' caldron, brewing a global judiciary movement spawned in Hades by the social progressive World Court, arguing before the world's governments of an imperative need for national courts to incorporate international law—described by those European judges as foreign decisional law—in legal cases being tried by those national courts.

When Associate US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered a speech to the South African Constitutional Court on Feb. 7, 2006, she mentioned that international law was acquiring a real position in the decision-making process in the world's national courts, including the views of the justices of the US Supreme Court. She lamented that the Republican-controlled Congress was stifling all debate over whether or not the federal judiciary could, or should, refer to foreign or international legal materials when considering the cases before them.

"For the most part," Ginsburg told her audience of South African judges, "they (conservatives in Congress) would respond to the question with a resounding 'No!' Two identical resolutions," she continued, "were reintroduced last year—one in the House of Representatives and the other in the Senate. Ginsburg12[They] declared that 'judicial interpretations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such [material] informs an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution.' As of December, 2005, the House Resolution had attracted support from 83 cosponsors. Two 2005-proposed Acts would do more than 'resolve.'" she added. "They would positively prohibit federal courts, when interpreting the Constitution, from referring to any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive Order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency—other than English constitutional or common law up to the time of the adoption of the US Constitution."

Ginsburg told her audience that while she doubted that the proposed resolutions would ever pass through Congress and actually be signed into law, she was disturbed about two things. First, it troubled her that the legislation attracted as many cosponsors in the House and Senate that it did, since it was her opinion that the resolutions were fueled by a fringe element on the far right and not by mainstream-thinking legislators. Second, she was disquieted that Congress would willingly impose their will on the federal judiciary by limiting the materials the courts could refer to in contemplating their decisions.

What I found most frightening about Ginsburg's remarks to the South African high court was her socialist indifference to the verbiage of the Constitution of the United States and, in the US, the rule of law, established and penned by the People's representatives who legislated what became the most unique system of law and liberty in the world. Ginsburg and now-retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were the first to openly violate the trust of the People.

In his 1990 book, "The Tempting of America," former US District Court Judge and foiled Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork noted that: "[t]he central problem for constitutional courts is the resolution of the 'Madisonian dilemma'...The dilemma is that neither majorities or minorities can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty. To place that power in one or the other would risk either tyranny by the majority or tyranny by the minority. The Constitution deals with the problem in three ways: by limiting the powers of the federal government; by arranging that the President, the senators and the representatives would be elected by different constituencies voting at different times, and by providing a Bill of Rights. The last is the only solution that directly addresses the specific liberties minorities are to have." The Bill of Rights, the instrument used to protect liberty became the problem of the utopians who wanted to redefine that liberty based on the needs of an evolving global—not national—society.

The liberals "problem" with the Bill of Rights is not that it's "frozen in time" as suggested by Ginsburg, and thus, needs to be "thawed" by the temperate mood of an evolving civilization at the gateway of Utopia in the 21st century. The Bill of Rights is completely neutral in its immunity and thus, it's ageless. It protects society by protecting all of the people from the conniving underhandedness of government as it protects the nation from the prejudices of the majority against the minority—and the racial, religious, ethnic and cultural prejudices of the minority against the majority. It is the most equal thing in our unequal world. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers exceeds the combined intellect of all of the Nobel laureates, junk yard lawyers and constitutional scholars combined.

Seventh US Circuit Court Chief Judge Richard A. Posner—one of the most brilliant, and outspoken, conservative judges on the federal bench—has made it clear in his writings that the opinions of foreign judges are not authoritative and have no place in American jurisprudence. Posner_RichardThey set no binding precedent that obligates a US judge to use their arguments in shaping their decision. Posner admitted, however, that the thinking behind the legal opinions of foreign judges may offer a storehouse of knowledge could be relevant in the decision process of the judiciary. But the view of the Chief Judge is that "...[t]o cite foreign law as authority is to flirt with the discredited idea of a universal natural law, or to suppose fantastically that the world's judges constitute a single, elite community of wisdom and conscience."

It was likewise the view of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia that the high court has no authority to consider foreign law as a "guide" in rendering decisions in cases which do not deal with international issues or with international litigants. Ginsburg, of course, disagreed. "Judges in the United States," Ginsburg noted in her address to the Constitutional Court of South Africa, "are free to consult all manner of commentary—restatements, treaties, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews. For example, if we can count those writings, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights? The notion that it's improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions...is in line with the view of the US Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."

Ginsburg noted that's the reason that the Supreme Court is now casting comparative side glances at the opinions of humankind. When the court was weighing Roper v Simmons in March, 2005, it looked at the propriety and utility of the whole spectrum of international law to gain a fresh assessment of the evolving standards of decency.

Roper v Simmons was heard on Oct. 13, 2004. In a 5-to-4, Mar. 1, 2005 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 8th and 14th Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. That's not true. The courts of Europe determined that society can't execute offenders under the age of 18. The 8th Amendment merely says the courts can't impose cruel or unusual punishment. The 14th Amendment applies the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to the States when, originally, they applied only to the federal government. While anti-death penalty advocates believe the death sentence is a cruel punishment because it takes the life of those it is imposed upon. However, the principle of an eye-for-an-eye is Biblical, and death is the only sentence that should be imposed upon those who, with malice, take the life of another.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Roper v Simmons. In writing the opinion, Kennedy noted that "...the opinion of the world community provides respected and significant confirmation of our own conclusions. It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution." Although Kennedy sits on a bench where everything he says—if he's part of the majority—is right (since he is writing law when he speaks). In this case he was wrong. Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Roper. In Roper, Kennedy—who actually wrote the opinion—stated that the view of the world community provides "...respected and significant confirmation of our own conclusions. Kennedy said "The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty...does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution...[or recognize] the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples." In Roper, the high court accepted amicus briefs from former President Jimmy Carter, who urged the high court to "...consider the opinion of the international community, which has rejected the death penalty for child offenders worldwide." In addition, amicus briefs were filed by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and South Africa's former president, Willem de Klerk. Ginsburg, like her liberal peers on the high court, believe the Supreme Court will accept the opinions of humankind as a matter of comity because as the world gets smaller and our enemies closer, she is convinced that all nations will be forced to trust all other nations—and cooperate with them to make all nations safe by the same accord.

That accord is not being written by a judicial consensus based on the rule of law in the United States, but by the utopian rules of quixotic men whose views were shaped and supported by the chimeric foundations of wealthy industrialists and bankers who have been carefully tailoring world government—to be controlled by them—one layer at a time, since 1905. One of the tasks of the global nation builders has been to structure the plenary rules by which all men in all nations shall accord themselves or be judged by the International Court of Justice—the World Court—in the Hague. At the heart of the effort to create uniform laws throughout the world is an organization called the International Law Institute [ILI], created in 1955 at the Georgetown University Law Center. A sister center, the Insitut Auslandisches und Internationales Wirtschaftscrecht was founded in Frankfurt, Germany at the Johannes Goethe University. The purpose of the Institute was to create a uniform legal system between Europe and America in order to facilitate transnational business and trade and to create a single global economic community out of the world. Stemming from the ILI is the International Judicial Academy whose job it would be to train judges to use domesticated international law in formulating their judicial decisions.

The ILI's first Director, Professor Heinrich Kronstein, fled Germany in the 1930s when Hitler assumed power. In the 1970s, Professor Don Wallace, Jr., a Georgetown law professor assumed the reins of the ILI, expanding its focus to include professional training in the legal, economic and financial problems of developing countries. In the 1990s, the roles of the Institute were expanded again to include the problems facing the new nations that were part of the Soviet Union as they transitioned from socialism to free market economies, and from totalitarianism to the rule of law. While the ILI is headquartered in Washington, DC, there are regional centers in Kampala, Uganda; Abuja, Nigeria; Cairo, Egypt; Santiago, Chile and Hong Kong, SAR. Within this decade, the ILI expects to have offices located in Moscow, Russia; Beijing, China; Pyongyang, North Korea; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Tehran, Iran.

The ILI now advises governments—including China—and multilateral NGOs on societal problems, the revision of regulations, legislation drafting, contract law and criminal law standardization, the standardization of banking regulations, and hundreds of other transnational projects that have gone literally unnoticed for a half century by the common, working class people of the world whose governments were working behind their backs to dissolve sovereignty and create a stateless community of nations governed by the UN not in New York, but at the Hague. Does that tell you anything?




Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved