PODCAST: Democrats are ‘Playing with Fire’ an interview with Dr. Edwin Vieira

Devvy Kidd sent us the following comments and video in an email. 

I’ve known Edwin Vieira for nearly 30 years.  I actually spoke with him the first time around spring in 1993 via phone. 
I called to ask a question about something I was going to put in my newsletter; a dear friend recommended I call Edwin.  Hungry for truth and trying to be accurate, I called him and the first thing Edwin did was chew me out.  He said if you put that in your newsletter you’ll look like an idiot!
Yep.  So, I’m standing in my garage packing boxes to ship copies of my Bankrupt America booklet; my other friend (who recommended him and told me Edwin’s credentials) is standing here while I’m listening to Edwin.  What was my reaction? 
If I was a liberal I would have jumped up and down, had a hissy fit and slam down the phone.  I did not.  By the time I called him, I knew Edwin’s bio and respected him even though I didn’t know him.  Anyway, my response was, I asked him if he could take the time to explain to me where I was incorrect or inaccurate? 
He did and I’ve been very blessed to have him as my friend ever since then and someone who has patiently educated me over the decades.  A man who has never received the recognition he should have received for his tome, Pieces of Eight on the “Fed”.  He should have won a Pulitzer Prize in Economics.
If we had Edwin Vieira as Attorney General and Sidney Powell as Director of the FBI, it would shake Washington, D.C. into spasms.   
This interview needs to be heard far and wide.  20 minutes in he really reinforces this is a criminal conspiracy and what should have been done and what needs to get done.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” and Constitutional “Homeland Security, Volume One, The Nation in Arms.”
©Devvy Kidd. All rights reserved

2 replies
  1. Kathleen Pageot
    Kathleen Pageot says:

    Mr. Viera throws his hands up as though he is helpless, as though Americans are helpless.
    But, of course there is “due process” to deal with it, Mr. Vieira. It’s called the Oath of Office and Allegiance.
    They can’t be sworn in, they are quite objectively criminals and traitors. They quite objectively plan to overthrow the whole form of government of the Republic.
    Whoever purports to swear them in is a party to the perjury and equally guilty for conspiring, through mere formalities (procedures) to rubber-stamp a cirminal coup.
    The swearing-in is the “process” that must be stopped. The party who plans to swear them in must be stopped.

  2. Kathleen Pageot
    Kathleen Pageot says:

    If, as Mr. Vieira says, the 2020 election fraud should have been dealt with as “criminal” in nature, what was he waiting for?
    He’s a lawyer, he could bring an information if he wanted to.
    But apparently, he has deliberately sat around doing nothing while knowing it’s all criminal!
    Astonishing. And he points the finger at the Trump crowd: why didn’t they treat it as criminal?
    Why didn’t Vieira do it? A citizen of the Republic, and a lawyer, a Harvard man (aren’t they usually lefties?), surely Vieira has “standing” to defend his constitutional rights against the criminals.
    Could it be that Mr. Vieira secretly hopes the backlash of the 2020 election treason (and the Capitol events on 6 Jan 2021) will lead to the mass secession of the States, that Vieira for so long has worked to achieve with his Phillips-funded efforts to constitutionalize the UDI of 1776?
    Which is certainly a heroic effort to turn a non-law (an unclothed “constituent act”: http://constituentpower.net/) into a “law” that modifies the Constitution that came after it!
    Extraordinary again, since the Constitution can be modified by nothing except the lawful amending procedures provided by it, lawfully not whimsically applied.
    Could that be why Mr. Vieira is sitting on his hands, squeaking like a wee mouse in a trap? Is he looking forward to the mass secession of the States to complete the North American Union “progressively” implemented by so many federal juntas?
    How did Shakespeare put it? Let me paraphrase: “Methinks he doth protest too much.” Which, of course, refers to the over-acting.

Comments are closed.