Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Saturday, 04 August 2007

It’s time to meet some of the more well-known boosters of the Constitution Party.  Just my little helping hand to Mark…who seemed a little grumbly about having to look into it more deeperer on his own.

Of course, being a free-thinker, Mark will also have to double-check the information that I provide*…but  hey.  It’s just the cost of being a responsible member of society that you find things out for yourself.

So, without further ado…let’s take a look at today’s profiled Constitutional Party booster:

Devvy Kidd is a writer writer and speaker.  In addition to an apparent fondness for randomly doubling consonants, she seems to be an advocate for the Constitution Party.

Quatloos!  Featured Devvy Kidd on their website, focusing on her apparent insistence that the 16th Amendment is illegal.

The World Net Daily seems to believe her.

Somehow, the Courts beg to differ (below copied from the Quatloos website link provided above):

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

(copied from the Quatloos! Website)

Check out Devvy’s reading list for becoming an informed citizen.  Of course, when you are done, you will believe that the Illuminate are out to kill you…

Devy Kidd endorses El Doroado Discount Gold, Inc.  You can count on an internet sales site like ElDorado Discount Gold inc.  Especially if someone as sane and well-balanced as Devvy endorses them.  After all, she’s one smart cookie.  She isn’t fooled by the Shriners’ helping treat all those kids with disabilities.

Devvy Kidd was the Freedom Drive Manager for We The People; a grass-roots organization determined to defend honesty, integrity and legality and….uh…


Oh yeah, if your head is still spinning from her insistence that the 16th amendment isn’t legal, how about her apparent insistence that the local county sheriff can legally refuse to enforce Federal laws?

And check out this jeremiad. If America’s schools were ACTUALLY anything like Devvy describes, I would want to abolish the Department of Education too.  Of course, if schools were as bad as Devvy says they are, it would also explain the lack of focus and coherence in her essay.  But when my kids come home and I say “What did you learn today?”…they have never answered “Sodomy, Communism and America Hatin’!!”

Sigh.  Oh well, at least I can go to bed tonight secure that Devvy Kidd is out there fighting tirelessly for my right to join an armed compound with my Sheriff’s support, make sure my kids have a ignorant terror that gay people will convert them, and selectively decide which constitutional amendments I’ll observe.  Vote Constitution party!

*         You should be aware that this is a capriciously written narrative intended to connect the dots of various things I’ve found on the web, and is NOT intended to inform you in anyway about Devvy Kidd.  The “facts” are unchecked.  As is always the case, the commentary provided by me is intended to entertain (mostly myself) rather than inform, and the conclusions drawn are not necessarily carefully considered.

Saturday, 04 August 2007 06:51:15 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] |  |  | #
Monday, 06 August 2007 08:28:29 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

I love the asterisk at the end of the post. Your conclustions were certainly not carefully considered.

Using all the links you provided - It seems to me that what Devvy wants is a return to Constitutional government. Her point about the schools was not that all they teach is "Sodomy, Communism and America Hatin" but rather that federal government involvement in education is unconstitutional. And on that point she is 100% correct!

Her arguments against the 16th amendment seem to bear some merit (that many states changed the wording of the amendment before ratifying it) - not that she has a chance in Hades of getting any satisfaction in court. I think she's wasting her time on this issue.

And the article in your very first link where you cite that she seems to support the Constitution Party doesn't say that at all. She simply says it's time for a change from the 2 parties because they are not performing.

It seems to me that your views about her are colored by your love of big government and your hatred towards capitalism. Can't help you there... You need to just read what is said and stop trying to inject meanings between the lines.

All I can say is that while I certainly don't agree with everything she says - but I do agree with much of it. The basic premise of all her stances is this: Give us less government and more freedom. And many - dare I say most - Americans agree.

Fun reading though...
Monday, 06 August 2007 12:29:23 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

How did you miss the whole screed about how schools don't do anything except teach sodomy to children, Communism, and America Hating? Seriously, she spent a fair amount of time on that. And the only people who actually believe that the schools teach those things are either people who have a scewed persepective of what those things are, or people who don't have kids in public school. From what I can see, the social indoctrination goes way far the other way. I think about the week we spent in my Highschool civics class learning about what life would be like when the commies took over (Yes, we even watched "Red Dawn" and "Rambo III" as part of the material, we got the clear meaasge that we were expected to turn into terrorists if the commies ever invaded) and I've seen nothing to indicate anything but a nice, Christian capitalist pro-America world-view being presented to my kids in school.

'course, they have also leanred that America has made mistakes, and they have learned how Americans go about correcting passing the freakin' 14th amendment to guarantee citizenship and rights to people who were too easily denied those rights without the benefit of the 14th amendment, just for instance.

Your rejection of large swaths of the constitution seem to be colored by your love of the politics of convenience, the belif in neo-confederate ideology rooted in rampant anti-federalism and a bizzare belief that the ideologies founded on the idea of an agrarian utopia are appropriate and effective ideas in an industrial world.

The constitution party is a weird amalgam of two sets of ideas: (1) that the only founders that matter were the landed slave-holding agrarian gentry, and not the pre-industrial commercial northern entreupeners and tradesmen. (2)that the only morality that is appropriate for our country was laid down in the bronze age.

You seen to agree with the first, and not be overly bothered by the second.

You have a right to that opinion, but I also have a right to think it's fucked up.
Monday, 06 August 2007 20:05:13 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

You're way too focused on the school thing. From the links you provided, the focus was more (much more) on federal government involvement in education.

I don't understand how you think I reject large swaths of the constitution. How did you come to that understanding?

The only founders that matter were the founders that created the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I, like them, leave morality up to each individual - as long as it doesn't interfere with my constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen. I could care less which historical age in which these so-called moralities were laid down. It's called freedom of religion.

My politics are certainly not of convenience. My politics are clearly and plainly laid out in the documents I just mentioned. It's the misuse of those documents by our past and current politicians that is the politics of convenience (i.e. convenient for them).

In no way am I involved in or with the Constitution Party. They're too religious for my tastes. Here is my official f-d up position. From what you've pointed out, though, they don't seem nearly as bad as you obviously think they are...
Tuesday, 07 August 2007 09:41:37 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Hmm... maybe I got the idea that you reject whole swaths of the Constitution because of your casual dismissal of several of it's important amendments.

As for the Christian Exodus people, I didn't expect you to object that they have personal religious beliefs, but I thought you might be a bit alarmed at their boldly stated intention and plan to deliberatly take over a state, hijack it's politics, institutue a "Biblical government" and if necessary secceed from the United States.

As for the school thing, the federal governments involvement in it is to guarantee the right of education to every citizen in the country, without which they can't be ensured of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." History has shown us that there is no assurance of an opportunity to be educated without it.
Comments are closed.
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: