Monthly Archives: April 2009

Call Me an Idealist—I’m Honored

lesser-of-two-evils1By Kellene Bishop

Face it. You’ve no doubt heard yourself uttering, or at least thinking the words “the lesser of two evils” when it came to voting for a particular candidate.  However, to put it simply, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.  As members of His church who have covenanted to build up this kingdom and to protect it, we simply cannot settle for such mainstream thinking.  We are not here in the last days to take it easy and bask in the abundance of technology and goods.  We are here to preserve, protect, and to prepare for His coming.  And yes, it is US that are here to do so, not our distant ancestors still to come, folks.  In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk at BYU in which he stated, “you students are a part of a choice young generation—a generation which might well witness the return of the Lord.”  He went on to say, “It will be your responsibility not only to help to carry the kingdom to a triumph but to save your own soul and strive to save those of your family and to honor the principles of the inspired constitutions of the United Stated.”

So, are we responsible for choosing only that which is good for our country and our religion, or shall our hands be clean if we simply vote for the “lesser of two evils?”

In Alma 46, Captain Moroni shows us just how important it is that not only do we refuse to accept any degree of evil among us, but that we must also ensure it doesn’t live to infiltrate our lives in the future generations either.  (See verses 29-35)

Still others, who are strongly rooted among us, would have us believe that a belief that “Right will reign if we but stand firmly for it” is idealistic, and as such is doomed for failure—especially in light of our prominent two party voting system. I’m certain that such a view point is perpetuated by the adversary.  I’m convinced that the Lord’s way is not to advocate “that which isn’t most wicked” but rather to always stand for that which is truly right, that which will truly protect freedoms, and preserve our religion.

The nay sayers can call this being an idealist all they want, telling the world how an idealist never gets anywhere so they can/should simply moderate towards the centrist view.  I firmly do not believe this.  The attitude that “we simply can’t afford to be idealistic” and that we need to moderate in order to get back to the Constitution is what got us here to begin with.  Surely we have seen that those who hold the views which threaten our religion and our freedoms never moderate, ever.  Have you not noticed that?  They don’t.  And they never sleep.  The holders of these views even admit that they have extreme agendas.  But then they watch as the typical Conservative movement gets all bent out of shape, then “they” back off from their original extreme agenda and accept a few baby-steps towards their original agenda.  And so on it goes.  Lather, rinse, repeat, until the adversary ends up with what he wanted all along.  Perhaps it’s hard to stand boldly and courageously in the face of truly evil principles, because such principles are held by living, breathing human beings who we instinctively love and strive to nurture, not destroy.  But stand we must, regardless of the face which breathes out these false principles.

Perhaps the tragedy in all of this is not that many have tried to make a difference and feel that they have failed in doing so, but more importantly, the disaster is that we who hold the truths actually give up in fighting against evil.  We try so hard to resist evil that we forget that the strength is in persisting evil.  Understandably our nemesis does not sleep, nor get distracted with families, television, church callings, or other intrusions on his efforts to thwart the Lords plan.  But far too many Believers have given up.  Where would we be today if people had held strong to their ideals and principles 70 years ago?  50 years ago?  Even 20 years ago?  I believe we would be in the midst of a far different nation, and even world. 

It is because we have decided to abandon our principles for so long that we find ourselves in our current situation, not because we held to them too tightly before finding it didn’t work exactly as we had planned.  It is far too common that the Holders of Eternal Truths simply live their lives, hoping (or even assuming) that someone else will take the heat and tow the line, while the adversary works tirelessly for his cause, knowing that it is all dependent upon him to do so.  It is because Believers have not stood by their principles that we are left wondering what principles are anymore, let alone which ones we should try to hold onto and which ones we should save to fight for another day.

If we are not willing to stand on our principles, how can we expect anyone else to? If we are willing to stand on our principles, why not NOW so that we can begin to affect change?  The Savior will not do it for us.  We are to make these changes for Him.

Do you simply believe that you are not leadership material?  That somehow true leadership is somebody else’s responsibility?  What is it about standing for something right now that scares us so badly?  Do we think we will lose an election by doing so?  

Advocating a slower moving train towards Socialism/Communism is still advocating for such a repugnant government.  We cannot fool ourselves into believing that someone who will give away ANY of our Constitutional freedoms may not be as bad as someone who confesses that they would give them all away.  Raping and pillaging is a violation of another, regardless of the speed at which it comes.  Worse, if we don’t see the freedoms that we’ve lost up to this time, then we are truly blind to what has been going on in this nation for far too long.

Yes, holding to our principles and voting for better leadership than we have now will split the Conservative ticket and allow a puppet of the adversary to be elected, but it will also show other Believers that they, too, can hold strong to their principles and cast a better vote.  The fight must begin with us, though the minority.  We cannot wait until we are in the majority, because it will never happen, according to prophesy.  In addition, as that movement grows, it will show the current leadership that there are those of us out here that stand for something and that we will no longer remain silent.  It is when we refuse to lead out, be first, and stand strong that both dominant parties know they can move where they want to because there is no one that will hold them accountable.  You’ve heard of gun-free zones, right?  You’re aware that the last five “mass shootings” all took place in a noted “gun free zone,” right?  Well, “the powers that be” prey upon “truth free zones.”  That is where we find ourselves today.  If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that continuing to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils hasn’t worked out real well for us thus far, and that this simple, but stubborn fact isn’t likely to change in the future either. 

How well did abandoning our principles and moderating the Republican Party work for us in the last election?  How well did abandoning our principles stop WRONG from being elected last election, and how well were we able to stop the last Presidency from destroying liberties faster than we were able to stop them?  Americans are justifiably fatigued with voting for the lesser of two evils and getting government leaders like we’ve had and have.  They’re waiting for someone else to take a stand, someone to rally around.  Why can’t that be you?  Frankly, it should be all of us. 

I promise from this day forward that I will never vote for the lesser of two evils again.  If that puts me squarely in the camp of “useless idealist” then so be it, but I am responsible for my votes and actions to a Heavenly Father that expects more of me than that.  Again, I implore you to read H. Verlan Anderson’s “Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen” (http://www.redhotlogo.com/2-Many%20Called.pdf) before entertaining a thought process which attempts to address the lesser of two evils.  It’s not an A or B vote, folks.  It should always be the Lord’s vote.  

While some may claim it to be idealistic, it is also according to the Lord’s commandments that we seek good and honorable men for our leaders.  If choices are not available before us, then we must step up to provide such a choice, just as Joseph Smith did.  The ONLY reason why he ran for President of the United States was to preserve our religious and Constitutional rights.  (See Teachings of Joseph Smith pages 331-334)  He even goes so far as to say, “if I lose my life in a good cause I am willing to be sacrificed on the altar of virtue, righteousness and truth in maintaining the laws and Constitution of the United States, if need be, for the general good of mankind.”

The problem of giving up our “idealistic” cause in response to the dominance of the current two-party system is akin to thinking, “Well, kids are going to have sex anyway, so let’s at least provide them a condom and teach them how to have sex safely.”  Clearly that doesn’t work for us and violates what we know to be right.  It is this mentality that causes our actions, even when shooting for best, to do nothing more than hand the victory to the other side.  Some have even gone so far as to rationalize “let’s get closer to the other side so that we can get votes from both sides.”  This certainly is a faulty strategy.  Even as an accomplished and skilled warrior as well as a righteous man that Teancum was, he was victorious over his enemies until he shunned the protection of the Lord by going “forth in his anger.”

Either we stand on principle, or we admit that our principles can be bought.  Which is it for you?  “Let’s elect someone that takes us down the road of Socialism slower, yeah, that will be better for us, but, hey, at least we won the election.”  Nope.  We will never win with such thinking.  The adversary will always win in this case by convincing us that voting for the lesser of two evils was much better than voting our true conscience, which is what the Lord asks and requires of us as citizens entrusted with a great nation and great, though lessening, liberties.

Prayerfully read the scripture for guidance on these matters.  Then read the published political platform of which you support.  Ask yourself if this platform truly ensures freedom for all men, and the liberties as the Lord had intended.  Unfortunately, I assure you that neither of the predominant platforms will reflect His Gospel.  So you need to ask yourself, “if not this, then what?”  I pray that you will find guidance and sure direction in exploring this question.

May we also covenant as did Moroni: “Behold, whosever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.” (Alma 46:20)

In parting, let me say this: In the war in heaven there was a group of Communists (roughly a third) that wanted to be forced back into the presence of Heavenly Father.  There were a group of Constitutionalists (roughly a third) that were willing to accept complete liberty and freedom to take on the responsibility for their own actions and then rely on the Lord to make up the difference.  And then there was a group of fence sitting, middle of the road, let’s-play-nice-with-everyone-so-we-don’t-tick-anyone-off-so-everyone-will-like-everyone, just-a-little-bit-of-both-sides-is-good-for-me, I-just-want-to-be-on-the-winning-team-regardless-of-who-it-is “voters” (roughly a third) that were willing to give up a little liberty to get a little security.  Which one are you?

The Lord claimed the Constitution as a work provided by inspiration at his hand through men he raised up for this very purpose (compare its ideals to those given by Christ in the war in heaven).  In response, Satan came up with the Communist Manifesto (compare its ideals to those given by Satan in the war in heaven), but he doesn’t care if we accept it wholeheartedly right now as long as we’re moving towards it, however slowly that may be.  Any move away from the Lord’s plan towards Satan’s plan is unacceptable.

As for me, I’ll take the Constitution coupled with the Gospel.

What type of tyranny would you like served today?  And would you like fries with that?

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  
Advertisements

Swine Flu and Universal Health Care Agenda

swine-flu-universal-health-care

 

It’s an enormous blessing that Obama’s health care plan has not been put into play here as of yet.  In Mexico, where the majority of the Swine flu cases in the world have been located, (over 2,400 at last count) the woman who may have been one of the key first cases to contract the deadly virus was unable to obtain appropriate health care.  She saw several doctors, prior to getting any treatment and being properly diagnosed.  

 

If you aren’t aware, Mexico has what they call a “universal healthcare” program for those who are employed full time.  Mexico has a shortage of doctors for their plan, and yet it was put into play in 2003 with full knowledge of such a shortage and no plans to resolve the shortage.  Hmmm.  The U.S. does not have a sufficient number of doctors to handle a “universal” plan either, yet Obama and his puppeteers push for it nonetheless.  In fact, Obama has gone so far as to use this potential epidemic as a propelling force to move his universal health plan through Congress at lightening speed.  Of course!  That fits this administrations motto of “never let a good crisis go to waste.”  Good grief!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/world/americas/29mexico.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Aliens Attack the U.S.

By Kellene Bishop

 

In view of Obama’s pick for U.S. Regulatory Czar, I have truly been converted today to the reality of aliens from outer space.  I say this because I have no earthly idea where a person would come up with such alien statements and beliefs as this person does.  Because the Sunstein Doctrine is so completely foreign to the substance and culture of this nation, it clearly demonstrates proof that Obama is pursuing his own agenda and not that of the American people.  I am 100% certain that this guy’s beliefs are indeed foreign.

 

cass-sunsteinIntroducing Cass Sunstein, the nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  This name accompanied by his bloodcurdling doctrine should cause you to shudder.  The fact that he would rape and pillage the first five Constitutional Amendments is only the tip of the iceberg.  Read on to see this freak of nature at his best.

 

In 2007, during a speech given at Harvard, Sunstein proposed that hunting be banned throughout the United States.  Ok, I can try to give him credit for wanting to save the lives of the hunting partners of Dick Cheney, but unfortunately his mutant beliefs only get more far fetched from here.

 

He believes that the internet is “anti-Democratic” because users can filter out any objectionable material.  As such he believes that the required use of technology by all citizens is necessary to ensure that a site contains “fair and balanced” information and that such a requirement should be put into play as soon as possible.  Does this mean that every site that communicates sound Christian values should also be required to communicate the thoughts and opinions of Satanic cults?  Does this mean if a site displays a picture of a virtuous woman that that same site must give the viewer access to porn as well?  And yes, Sunstein has gone so far as to declare that non-profit groups should be required to publish counter positions to theirs on their own websites.  That’s right.  If Mother Teresa had a web site, she would be required to provide information on Hitler as well.

 

He also believes that we should be required to use software which would  prevent anyone from sending an e-mail in which the SOFTWARE determines holds “uncivil” comments.  Awww.  Ain’t that cute?  These poor little defenseless politicians must have had their feelings hurt by all that was said during the Tea Parties.  They need a software program to protect them from hearing any dissenting opinions.  He proposes that this software double-ask the sender if they really want to send an “uncivil” e-mail message.  And if they do, then the e-mail must be filed away for 24 hours for a mandatory cooling off period.  Oh I get it.  The First Amendment gives free speech, but only if it’s not offensive to anyone.  Right.

 

radicals-in-robesIn his book “Radical to Robes” Sunstein writes that he believes that all gun control legislation is constitutionally congruent.  He believes that the U.S. Supreme court “got it wrong” in determining that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals.

 

Ok, here’s a real loony one.  In his 2004 book entitled “Animal Rights” he wrote that he believed that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”  Holy cow!  (pun intended)  I’m all about protecting animals, but providing them with a public defender at the expense of tax dollars is laughable!  If you hurt my dogs, I will indeed defend them, but where will it stop?  We already have an over burgeoning court system.  Criminals get off for murder of a human being?  What additional justice are we to expect when a person sends an uncivil e-mail to Mickey Mouse?  Are the lawyers not making enough money?  Do they need to start chasing Fido rather than ambulances?  Where does the U.S. Constitution stand on giving animals the same rights as humans?  Oh yeah.  It doesn’t.  And besides, how can we expect to preserve and protect the Constitutional rights of animals when we are proving ourselves incapable or unwilling to preserve and protect the rights of legal, law-abiding American citizens?  If you give animals constitutional rights, then you must give them consequences as well.  Will we expect law enforcement to release Shack, the vicious Pit Bull because he wasn’t read his Miranda Rights?

 

To me, here is the most horrific aspect of all of this.  Read what Obama thinks of this individual, specifically in relation to his ability to uphold the Constitutional rights and freedoms of our citizens: “As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar.  “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”  I have no doubt that he is a dear friend of Obama’s based on this information.  However, it’s clear that Sunstein knows about as much about the constitution as Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garofalo know about civility.

 

too-many-choicesTo completely prove my case of this alien-born, anti-Christ, Sunstein states “limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”  Yup.  We’re just dumb human beings incapable of making the “right” choice if we are presented with so many choices.  You’re right Sunstein.  Americans simply have too many choices, and as such we’re certainly making the wrong decisions.  But I ask you, why stop at the internet, Sunstein?  Why not reel in those villainous makers of feminine products as well?  Slim, mini, super, extra super, pink, blue, white, mega, etc.  How is a sane person to choose?  I find the vast amount of tampons for women completely overwhelming and sending my poor husband out to retrieve the proper box could result in a 3rd World War.  I’m sure limiting our choices between good, bad, evil, and truly in our best interests was exactly what the Founding Father feared in declaring ultimate freedom from an oppressed government.  Too bad they didn’t declare freedom from beings from Mars as well.  I’d feel a lot safer now.

 

I think the best science fiction writers of our time will find merit in the Sunstein Doctrine. After all, it will provide great fodder for their story lines.  What’s the saying?  “Truth is stranger than fiction.”  We might as well prepare ourselves for the same kind of alien invasion represented in the Will Smith movie, “Independence Day”, if we are to tolerate a man in such a controlling a position as this.

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  

 

 

Baptist Pastor vs. Border Patrol

By Kellene Bishop

 

 

This video of Steve Anderson is just over 8 minutes long.  The contents of it are disturbing to me from a standpoint of freedom, but even more disturbing to me are the comments of ignorant fools in response to this video.  Lest any more of you should grossly err in your judgment of this situation, allow me to enlighten you.

 

The time to stand up for your rights is ANY and EVERY time they are being violated.

 

One person on YouTube commented that this person should not have “taken the law into his own hands.”  Sorry folks.  The law is FOR the people, not issued in hopes that power-drunken agents such as these will honor it.  It is for ALL of the people.  It is your DUTY to know what the laws are and push back.  For too long the overwhelming majority has been apathetic to their rights under the laws, and this is exactly why such atrocities of law have occurred in this situation.  Do you naively believe that only the military is empowered to support and sustain our Constitutional rights?  How is that fair that our soldiers have to lose their lives to defend our freedoms, but every citizen in this country doesn’t have to do their part as well?  As insignificant as this act may seem to others in the nation, in my opinion there is virtue and righteousness in affirming our rights under all circumstances. 

 

Another ignoramus commented that “from what he was able to find out, this guy isn’t a very good person.”  Others accused him of being a “know-it-all” and a pompous @$$, etc.  Guess what, folks?  The rights of the U.S. Constitution are ensured for all people, including someone who may come across to some as a jerk.  That’s why some personalities are permitted to grace your television sets and radio stations.  There is no U.S. law which states you must comply nicely when your rights are or are not being violated.  There is no requirement that you speak softly, etc.  So whether you support the personality traits of this person is completely unimportant.  As an American, his rights are his rights regardless.

 

As the result of his FIRST Amendment right (which is not a coincidence that such a right is in the first position of all outlined rights in our Constitution) this individual has the right to free speech.  Thus anything he may have said which would make a person angry is unacceptable grounds for the actions of these so-called agents.

 

Several foolish posters commented that “all this guy had to do was answer the questions.”  Again.  They are wrong.  If a police officer comes to your door and begins asking you questions, you are under NO obligation to answer such questions.  Answering questions by law enforcement is not a requirement.  In fact, in accordance to the Fifth Amendment, we have the right to not say ANYTHING which may incriminate us.  Even the Miranda Rights reaffirm such. Not answering questions does not negate any of your other rights under the U.S. Constitution.

 

Another fool posted a supposition that Congress has granted the Border Patrol broad authority of search and seizures.  Guess what.  I don’t care if the President himself gave the Border Patrol agents permission to behave this way, it’s illegal!  Pure and simple.  No law can be passed in this country which is at odds with the U.S. Constitution.  The only way that this act could be made “legal” is if there was a Constitutional Amendment fully ratified.  Congress also recently passed an enormous bill without even reading it.  Does that make it right or legal?  No.  It’s malpractice.  And such a foolish comment flies in the face of all of those who have died so that we may now possess those rights.  Until I see a Congressman who will pay the “uttermost farthing” to protect my rights as did our Founding Fathers, then such a Congressman does not receive any honorable attentions from me.  Too many of our Americans today are sheep.  They feel that simply because the President declares something, or the Congressmen say it and then sign it, that it’s law.  Sorry folks.  All laws MUST be in alignment with the U.S. Constitution.  New laws can specify, clarify, and even give consequences for violating the laws and rights of the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot circumvent or violate them.

 

baptist-pastor-steve-andersonThen there are the masses of individuals who would judge this person because he’s a Baptist Pastor.  He’s accused of being difficult by being non-compliant.  Boy howdy am I ever GRATEFUL for my non-compliant Founding Fathers, as well as my non-compliant Savior who did NOT “save” the Jews based on their short-sighted expectations and demands.  Too many individuals wrongly presume that as a Baptist pastor, he should be a mouse and comply.  Sorry, you’d be wrong again to presume such.  This guy did not spew foul language at these agents.  He did not “get in the way” of their tazers and metal batons.  These “agents” made a choice to act in the manner in which they did.  As such, Jesus would condemn them, not the person upon whom they acted.  It’s alarming to me just how many folks believe that standing up for your Constitutional rights is an act of deviance in the Christian world—especially in light of the fact that God inspired the men who served as our Founding Fathers of this nation.  God is fully invested in our rights being upheld in this nation.

 

The fact that the dog was brought into this as grounds for the search is laughable as well, since the Fourth Amendment requires that probable cause be established by “oath or affirmation.”  Clearly Fido didn’t say anything.  He was merely used as a pawn for their designs.  Isn’t it ironic that law ENFORCEMENT officials don’t care much for a person who actually helps them understand the laws of which they are to enforce?  Case in point, if a 31-year-old man has sex with a 14-year-old girl, even if it’s consensual, it’s illegal.  Coinciding with that, even if the American people are willing to have their rights raped and pillaged “consensually” it’s still illegal and in direct violation of our Bill of Rights.  Even honest citizens with nothing to hide are violated whenever we consent to the erosion of our rights and liberty.

 

Another aspect of this incident is the excessive force.  Hmmm… how many drug traffickers have made it across the border without their windows bashed in, or having been cut, tazed, and battered?  Even if this guy WAS a drug dealer, they are NOT permitted to treat him as such.  That’s right.  Even if he was verbally belligerent, had a couple of kids and some drugs in the back of the car, the Border Patrol are not permitted to handle the situation the way they did.  This constitutes “unreasonable search.”  But hey, it’s not unreasonable seizure because they found NOTHING.  (Although, due to the damage they inflicted on the vehicle, they did in fact illegally “seize” this man’s car.)

 

This person is rumored to have had a “run-in” with Border Patrol previously in which he also refused to answer their questions.  However, posting a video on YouTube complaining about your previous treatment with Border Patrol does not give an “agent” free reign to violate your Constitutional rights.  Plain and simple, Folks.

 

While it may take a while to get this all sorted out, anytime a person legally defends their rights of this nation, they have my wholehearted support.  I may not agree with their personality traits, their religion, or their other beliefs, but they are indeed correct in asserting those rights.

 

Bottom line, if you will not stand up for the Constitution, who will?

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  

What if Lawyers Were Forbidden from Holding Political Office? The REAL 13th Amendment Exposed

obama-2Interesting question, eh? What IF lawyers were indeed forbidden from holding political office?  What if there was a Constitutional law which prevented both Clinton and Obama from serving as U.S. President?  Are you aware that there is such a national law present which forbids lawyers from serving in public office positions such as a Congressman, Senator, Secretary of State, or the U.S. President?  Yes. It’s in your U.S. Constitution.  Now, before you feverishly go to view your present Constitution thinking that you could never have missed such an Amendment, let me save you the trouble by telling you that it’s no longer there.  The original Thirteenth Amendment which was fully ratified and published for over 20 years as such (thus lending even more credence to such ratification claim) no longer appears in your copy of the Constitution. Why?  Well, the “why” this Amendment is glaringly missing from our present Constitution is only half of the story. Equally as important is why such a Constitutional Amendment was ever introduced and then fully ratified in the first place? Just what was so important that our government leaders saw fit to exclude this single occupation from holding public office?  And why is such an Amendment “missing” now? It all starts with some genuine intrigue and fraud. And I’m going to share with you the entire story here. 

 

First of all, though—confession time. I did not write the main body of this post. I couldn’t get permission to share the primary body of this article with you either as tracking down anyone to do so was literally impossible. I kept hitting dead ends, not because I couldn’t get permission from someone, but because I could not get “Someone” (aka anyone) to confirm that they were the original compilers of the information.  So I provide it to you here without such permission because it’s far too important for our education and for us to decide, what, if any action we will take on this matter.

 

If you are a REAL American who values the U.S. Constitution, you should indeed be familiar on this topic.

 

Admittedly, this is not a typical short and sweet article. But if I didn’t provide you with the entire contents, there would surely be a few who would discount what I shared simply because some of the back-up information was not posted as well.  So, I’m feeding you the entire (albeit still abbreviated) feast on this issue.

 

The facts are that not only do we have at least 1 amendment as a part of our Constitution that was not properly ratified (16th), thus it is completely unfounded and with no legal efficacy, but our Constitution has been defiled by the elimination of the original 13th Amendment which was, indeed, legally ratified. 

 

Educate yourself on this most interesting topic! 

 

The Missing 13th Amendment

“TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”

Date 08/01/91
David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor

constitution-featherIn the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” [Emphasis added.}

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so.

george-washington-prayerConsider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

To understand the meaning of this “missing” 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context — the era surrounding the American Revolution.

We tend to regard the notion of “Democracy” as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.

Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception — it was, perhaps, the first “cold war”. Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy’s counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.

DON’T BANK ON IT

(Modern Banking System)

The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin… Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… Take this great power away form them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in… But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930’s. Today’s abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you’re not being robbed? Guess who’s going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L’s, taxpayer? You are.)

The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions.

When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks.

Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client’s gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue “extra” notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the “extra” notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist.

Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a “run on the bank”. If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers “sweetheart” loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal government’s unbridled growth.)

PAPER MONEY

moneyIf the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.

It’s often suggested that our Constitution’s prohibition against a paper economy — “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts” — was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a “paper” economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.

“Paper money,” said Pelatiah Webster, “polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people.”

CONSPIRACIES

A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States:

According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government.

Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn’t make sense, especially in light of Senate’s secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That’s subversion.

The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) wonout in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 — 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn’t exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United States Bank.)

revolutionary-war-2The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that european banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank’s charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.

That’s destruction.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy’s efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called “2 VA LAW” in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, “This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.’ There is no public record that this book exists.”

That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), “the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts.” There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.

TITLES OF NOBILITY

In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them “titles of nobility”.

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the knight’s shields as “Esquires”. As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was “Esquire” (used, even today, by some lawyers).

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”.

“Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.

HONOR

revolutionary-war-constitutionThe missing Amendment is referred to as the “title of nobility” Amendment, but the second prohibition against “honour” (honor), may be more significant.

According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster’s Dictionary, the archaic definition of “honor” (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another”. A contemporary example of an “honor” granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens.

If this interpretation is correct, “honor” would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while “titles of nobility” may no longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of “honor” remains relevant.

For example, anyone who had a specific “immunity” from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an “honor”, and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the “immunities” from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.

As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation our government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).

WHAT IF?

(Implications if Restored)

If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, “special interests” and “immunities” might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were applied today, our government’s ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.

Imagine.

Imagine!

A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be … almost like … a government … of the people … by the people … for the people!

Imagine: a government … whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people!

It’s unheard of … it’s never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.

13th-amendmentBear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the “title of nobility” Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn’s research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story.

Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came?

One vote. One state’s vote.

The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state’s support.

One vote.

David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it.

PARADISE LOST

In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “title of Nobility” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn’t passed, this was the first time a “title of nobility” amendment was proposed.

Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another “Title of Nobility” Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification:

“If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the “Title of Nobility” Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:

   Maryland,         Dec. 25, 1810
   Kentucky,         Jan. 31, 1811
   Ohio,             Jan. 31, 1811
   Delaware,         Feb.  2, 1811
   Pennsylvania,     Feb.  6, 1811
   New Jersey,       Feb. 13, 1811
   Vermont,          Oct. 24, 1811
   Tennessee,        Nov. 21, 1811
   Georgia,          Dec. 13, 1811
   North Carolina,   Dec. 23, 1811
   Massachusetts,    Feb. 27, 1812
   New Hampshire,    Dec. 10, 1812


Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed “title of nobility” amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76)

(This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams’ letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, “misc.’ file, p. 299 for micro-film): “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto…” This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day — the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment’s official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

RATIFICATION FOUND

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification.

Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that threefourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.

Word of Virginia’s 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Main ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something.

You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we’ve discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don’t know their amendments from their … ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our forefathers never meant to “outlaw” public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to “look the other way.” Maybe. But before you do, there’s an awful lot of evidence to be explained.

THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS


In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes:

“In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76.” In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).

It’s not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia’s ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it’s not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed — the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence.

However, because the notes authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia’s ratification. This opinion — assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment — has persisted to this day.

In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code’s revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia’s ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton’s opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860).

Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.

Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: “ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states’ rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states’ rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee’s surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the “new” 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited “titles of nobility” and “honors”.

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This twotiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

QUICK, MEN! TO THE ARCHIVES!

Each of Sen. Mitchell’s and Mr. Hartgrove’s arguments against ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions are only implied. But it’s no wonder that there’s such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amendment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we can’t … quite … absolutely prove it’s a duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it’s a duck.

Maybe so.

But if we can’t prove it’s a duck, they can’t prove it’s not. If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government’s refusal to acknowledge the proof.

We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the “missing” 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer and taunt us with cries of “make us”.

Perhaps we shall.

The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives.

founding-fathersIf you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the “missing” 13th Amendment please contact David Dodge, POB 985, Taos, New Mexico, 87571.

1) It’s worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher, uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment. Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive, their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the Colorado archivists.

2) If there’s insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819 (there is no evidence that Virginia did not), this raises a fantastic possibility. Since there was no time limit specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed only Virginia’s vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution.

Article XIII

A few months back there was quite a lot of traffic concerning the “lost” 13th amendment. It has recently been mentioned again, so this may be a good time to bring this up. I was able to contact the researchers, David Dodge, Tom Dunn and Brian March and get a copy of the latest report on this topic. Many of you are very familiar with this story, but there is relatively new information concerning the records that exist which substantiate the validity of the claim that the “Titles of Nobility” was actually ratified. It is necessary to go through the report carefully, but it seems certain from the documents that have been found at the National Archives and elsewhere that TON was legally ratified. For those who are new to this I will re-hash the old news and weave in the new as I go along.

In 1983, two independent researchers, David Dodge and Tom Dunn, while looking for evidence of political corruption in a library in Belfast Maine, stumbled across an 1825 copy of the Maine Civil Code. In this document, as I believe is customary, the Constitution of the U.S. was printed. They noticed that Article Thirteen of the amendments was not the same Article Thirteen which is now enumerated in the Constitution. This Article Thirteen, which is known as the “Titles of Nobility” amendment, (TON) reads as follows:

Article XIII
————

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.


The post went on to say that the researchers had carried on a written communication with Sen. George Mitchell (D. Maine) and as I recall, someone named Hargrave from the National Archives in Washington DC. It appears that the original position of Mitchell and Hargrave was that this was simply a printing error and that it had been immediately corrected upon discovery. This does not appear to be the case. Dodge and Dunn went on to find, at last count, 24 different state legislatures which printed this amendment as Article Thirteen, in 77 separate editions of their respective Civil Codes. This occurred over a period from 1818 until 1876. It has also been found in school text books and other publications from that period. At first I was very skeptical, but now I have seen 2nd generation photo copies of all of these documents. Almost every document carries a stamp from the library where it was found. In some cases where the document was hand written I have only seen a typed version, but after speaking with the researchers at length, I am sure that these typed reproductions are faithful. In total, they present compelling evidence that the original Article Thirteen was wrongfully removed from the Constitution.

constitution2Gradually the position of Senator Mitchell and others at the National Archive changed. (Paraphrased from the letters between Dodge and Mitchell). One such position was that the article in question had been proposed in the 11th congress, 2nd session in 1810 and subsequently ratified by only 12 states before the close of 1812. As there were 17 states at the time that the Amendment was proposed it required that 13 states ratify, and this did not happen. Dodge and Dunn continued their research. They found a circular letter, dated 7, Jan. 1818, commissioned by the House of Representatives for President James Monroe and written by then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. It was sent to only 3 states, of the original 17, that had not yet responded, as to their disposition on the proposed Thirteenth Article. Virginia was one of those states. Dodge and Dunn now went to the Library of Congress and were allowed access to the rare book room. There they found an un-cataloged book entitled “The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia”, 1819. The amendment was there, listed as the Thirteenth Article of the U.S. Constitution. This, of course, indicated that a 13th state had indeed ratified the amendment, constituting a 3/4 majority of the states of the Union at the time the amendment was proposed… and now, the Senator’s position changes once again. They responded to Dodge by saying that since there were 21 states by the time that Virginia ratified in 1818 or 1819, 13 was no longer enough to bring the amendment into law. They contended that It would have then required 16 votes to ratify, not 13.

This appears to be the current position of Senator Mitchell and the National Archives, although the Archives legal department has not yet formally responded to the question. The Constitution is **silent** on what is to be done concerning the addition of new states during the ratification process. Furthermore, the four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois) who, Senator Mitchell and the archivists, claim should have been considered in this process, all, **without exception**, carried the “Titles of Nobility” amendment on their U.S. Constitutions for at least several years after 1818 or 1819. It would appear that those state’s own legislatures considered this to be the law of the land.

There are some documents which have been uncovered that are not included in the current edition of the report. Brian March did a thorough search of the archives in the four states that were added during the ratification process. No evidence was found to indicate that the Secretary of State polled them as too their response on the amendment. !!!THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED!!! and as I said earlier, all four states have been shown to have published the TON amendment. The letters from those state archives are among the documents not included in the report. I have seen copies of all the documents. These guys have done some tremendous research and documented everything very well.

Another “report to the President” of Feb 3, 1818, a time when the four states had already been admitted, also lists specifically the states that were involved in the ratification and !!!AGAIN, THE NEW STATES ARE NOT CONSIDERED!!! Again, this report was not available when they went to press. If you ask Brian to include some of the new material I feel certain that he will.

SUMMARY

To summarize:

  • The current position of those in the government is that there may have been a 13th state (Virginia) ratify the amendment. However, at the time that such ratification took place, new states had entered the union. The required 3/4 majority was not met as determined by the addition of the new states.
  • Dodge, Dunn and March contend and provide documentation that supports the claim that at that time the new states were not considered in the process of ratification.

 

  •  
    • The circular letter of Jan. 7, 1818
    • The report to the president of feb. 3 1818
    • Published civil codes of the four new states which clearly show that those states considered the amendment law even though they had not been asked to vote on it.

 

  • Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of new states entering the Union during the ratification process.
  • Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of time limits on the ratification process itself. Today, time limits on an amendments ratification must be stipulated at the time of the acceptance of the proposal. This was not done in the case of TON, so there was/is no time limit in effect.
  • I know of no legal way for an amendment to be removed from the Constitution other than congressional repeal, which requires the passage of a contrary amendment. Does anyone know of another way with precedent?

STATE PUBLICATIONS:

The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

State

Publications


 


 

Colorado

1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868

Connecticut

1821, 1824, 1835, 1839

Dakota

1862, 1863, 1867

Florida

1823, 1825, 1838

Georgia

1819, 1822, 1837, 1846

Illinois

1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845

Indiana

1824, 1831, 1838

Iowa

1839, 1842, 1843

Kansas

1855, 1861, 1862, 1868

Kentucky

1822

Louisiana

1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]

Maine

1825, 1831

Massachusetts

1823

Michigan

1827, 1833

Mississippi

1823, 1824, 1839

Missouri

1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*

Nebraska

1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873

North Carolina

1819, 1828

Northwestern
Territories

1833

Ohio

1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848

Pennsylvania

1818, 1824, 1831

Rhode Island

1822

Virginia

1819

Wyoming

1869, 1876


 

Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications. “Pimsleur’s”, a checklist of legal publications, does not list many of the above volumes.

* This volume was published twice in 1845. The first published the “Titles of Nobility” amendment, the second was published right after Congress set the requirements for Missouri’s admission as a State. The “Titles of Nobility” amendment was replaced with a notation that this amendment was printed in error in 1835.

PUBLICATIONS:

“The History of the World”, Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York, 1850, vol. 2, p.462. Republished by Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856, vol. 2, p.462.

“The Rights of an American Citizen”, Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.

“Laws of the United States of America”, Bioren and Duane, Philadelphia & Washington, 1815, vol. 1, p.74. [See: Note below]

“The American Politician”, M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.

“Constitution of the United States”, C.A. Cummings, Lynn, Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.

“Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence”, Edward Currier, Blake, Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.

“Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for the use of Common Schools”, John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of Philadelphia High School and Professor of Moral Mental and Political Science), Butler and Co., Philadelphia, 1850, p.100.

“Potter’s Justice”, H. Potter, U.S. District Court Judge, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1828, p.404, 2nd Edition [the 1st Ed., 1816, does not have “Titles of Nobility”].

Note: The “Laws of the United States” was published by John Duane. Without doubt, Duane was aware of Virginia’s plan to ratify this amendment which targeted, amongst other things, the emolument of banking and the agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys. Currency manipulation led to the failure of numerous banks and in turn to many a personal bankruptcy, including that of Thomas Jefferson. The allegiance of attorneys** has always been with the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar, monarch or corporate monopoly. [** See: “Acts of Virginia”, Feb. 20, 1812, p.143]

The Court, in “Horst v. Moses”, 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility:

To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it rises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.

“Bouvier’s Law Dictionary”, 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the due process amendments as 5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on p.571.

The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment.

REFERENCES

Titles of Nobility – DEFINITIONS

From: Noah Webster 1828
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1848
Black’s Law Dictionary 1891
Note: Because they are so similar, the definitions have been consolidated.

  • “Emolument”: – A gain of profit or advantage.
  • “Foreign Power”: – “Power” – a sovereign state; a controlling group; possession or control; authority or influence, political or otherwise.
  • “Honour”: – One having dominion, advantage or privilege over another.
  • “Nobility”: – Exalted rank – high social position.
  • “Title of Nobility”: – An order of men, in several countries, to whom special privileges are granted,
  • “privileges”: – To grant some particular right or exemption.

From a court case, in Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 123, 142 (1872), which gave the following description of “Titles of Nobility”:

“to confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.”

Tea Party USA—The Story is the Story

tea-party-mapOver 2,000 tea parties were held throughout the U.S. on April 15, over 700 of them in major cities.  By all estimates there were overwhelming numbers of attendees at these events, highlighting it as a marked moment in history.  Even in light of all of the other movements (such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, women’s right to vote, etc.) which have all notably marked our history, this is the first time that everyday citizens have rallied in such record numbers.  Even more significant is that the majority of those who attended these Tea Parties had never attended a rally previously.  That’s right.  These were not paid ACLU or ACORN advocates orchestrating a fake grassroots movement.  These were everyday Americans, leaving the comfort of their security, even some taking time off from work, to finally let their voices be heard.  Thousands came out in spite of severe inclement weather.  But that’s not the story.  The story is the story.

 

On April 15th and all day yesterday, no major newspaper or mainstream news station (non-cable) covered this story with any more time or emphasis than they would have a basement flooding in a person’s home.  Network news didn’t cover it, except that NBC personally, on a 3rd grade level, attacked the folks who showed up for such events.  Not so surprising was CNN represented by a female reporter who was blatantly prosecutorial throughout the course of her “interviewing” of Tea Party attendees.  THIS was the story in spite of the fact that this act of so many, even novices, gathering in protest of their government was a truly historical day. 

 

tea-party-protest-chicagoAnd yet how were the acts of these modern-day Patriots portrayed?  With scoffs, and “intellectual” scorns.  Their intelligence was insulted.  Their education was questioned.  Even their virtue and parental capabilities were slandered.  Not by a few, but by the mainstream media.  Does anybody wonder why an “Us vs. Them” mentality has begun to manifest itself in our America?  Better yet, does anyone wonder why newspapers are now begging for a bailout?  Pelosi has the audacity to call these historical efforts “astroturf” contrived by the wealthy.  Really?  Raise your hand if you were compensated one penny to protest at a Tea Party.  Better yet, raise your hand if it actually COST you money to be there.

 

As honest, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens took to the streets to make their rationale voices heard, the cowardly sheep stayed at work on their computers posting anonymous comments as to the caliber of the individuals doing so.  One person commented on the “lack of education” of those who would take such proactive actions.  I ask you—you, who cowers in your cubicle to mock those who stand—just how much education does one need in order to understand that they are being raped and pillaged?  They don’t need to have an understanding of the constitution to know that they’ve got more bills than they have money right now.  They don’t need a PhD to understand that they’ve been laid off of their jobs.  And are you aware, Oh Stupid One, that the majority of the millions of Americans who laid the groundwork of this United States only had the education equivalent of our present fourth grade level? 

 

tea-party-cant-fix-stupidWas the Boston Tea Party of 1773 merely “astroturf,” Pelosi?  In my patriotic, fed up opinion, those who would deride the genuine efforts of April 15th are indeed the enemy of our freedoms.  Regardless of what position they hold, what power they wield, or how much money they make, they are the no different than those who opposed the original Boston Tea Party of 1773, favoring instead the mythical power and influence of the tyrannical King George.

 

Remember this—Tyrants and Traitors of Our Freedom—when the day comes that you find yourself void of the freedoms which you’ve come to take for granted, yea, even that day when the very freedom which permits you to mock and scorn in the name of journalism is eliminated, don’t ask me to defend you, for I will truly “know you not.”  Instead I will be focused and fighting solely for those who have a deep-seeded virtue of Freedom within them.  

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  

                                                                                                  

“The Coming Revolution”

About a week ago I was reading the blog of a good friend of mine and felt that his message was very appropriate to share with the readers.  This is not of my talents, but completely of his. 

 

The Coming Revolution By Andrew Teasdale

Brigham Young said the following: “Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ‘The time will come when the Constitution of this nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.’ It will be so.” (July 4, 1854, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 15)As I’ve become more “aware” (maybe “awake”) over the past dozen years or so, I’ve reflected on this statement.  Recently, within the past couple of weeks, I’ve come to a troubling conclusion.  I’d like to share some of the key steps in this journey.

george-w-bush-war-on-terror1First, the current and past few US presidents have had little, if any, regard for the Constitution.  My ‘awareness’ really flourished during the reign of Bush the Lesser.  He launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without Congressional approval – a Constitutional requirement for waging war.  He stamped on many other Constitutional safeguards.  Perhaps the most troubling was his establishment of his own Praetorian Guard.  US Army troops are now assigned to operate within the bounds of these United States (stationed in my backyard at Ft. Knox, KY).  The list goes on and on of how Bush trampled the Constitution.  I don’t need or want to go through the awful details here.

Bush’s successor, Obama the Beneficent has, in his disregard for the Constitution, put his predecessor to shame.  General Motors has become Government Motors and Obama the Omniscient has determined that Mr. Wagoner is not the man to lead GM.  I don’t see where the Constitution grants the Executive Branch the authority to do this! Perhaps the most (and it’s stiff competition) insidious recent event (i.e., of these first 100 days) is the passage of the GIVE act.  This act, co-sponsored by our very own Hatch the Giving, is, certainly not the first, but a huge step toward enslavement.

Just a quick note.  Why, you may be asking, all the “Obama the Beneficent” type references?  It’s an oblique reference to Alexis de Tocqueville’s essay, “What sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear.”  It’s not too long.  Google it and have a read.  See if you don’t find him a prophet of sorts.  But I digress…

Back to the first point.  Really, it’s this.  I think the Constitution is hanging by a thread.  Now.  Already.  Right now.  There’s just a thread.  The Executive branch is doing whatever it wants and it has the pieces in place to cut any remaining threads at the next ‘crisis.’

You might not be there with me on this one.  You might argue that there are a couple of threads.  We still have free speech and the right to bear arms.  OK.  I’ll grant you that.  However, if they can be removed at the next crisis (when you’d really need them), do you really have them?

So, for the sake of the rest of my argument, go with me for a minute that the Constitution is hanging by a thread right now.

orrin-hatchAll this happened while we (the LDS people) had well-placed government officials “on the watchtower” (so to speak).  These are people who could have warned us, perhaps by providing additional information to the obvious things we can see by reading the published reports.  The senator from Nevada, Hatch the Giving, and several others.  They could have been sounding the warning bell – and even fighting for the Constitution.  But, they have not.  They have contributed to the Constitution’s downfall (perhaps the one point of promise is Chaffetz the Frugal (rumor has it he’s concerned enough about prudent use of taxpayer funds that he sleeps in his office to cut down on costs)).  They voted for and promoted (Reid) the robberies (er, “Bailouts.” Note it isn’t ‘theft,’ that’s what happens when you aren’t watching.  Robbery is when it’s done by force – and this was certainly done by force) and the enslavement (Hatch’s GIVE act).

I could go on here as well.  However, the point is that our best placed Constitution defenders are taking it down, not rescuing it.

To review: The Constitution is hanging by a thread.  The people we’d hope to be working on saving it aren’t.

Then last week I started thinking – and here’s the conclusion.  The federal government isn’t going to give up its power.  The only way ‘this people’ will save the Constitution is by force – by revolution.  I remember reading this statement by LDS Church president Ezra Benson, “To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned.  Momentum is gathering for another conflict—a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago.”  (The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986, p. 27)

obamaObama the Beneficent will not heed a call to return to Constitutional principles. Nor will his successor, even if it is Mitt the Merciful.  By the time Obama is finished, we’ll have the US version of the Hitler Youth in place (again, see the recently passed GIVE act) as well as, it is certain, a host of other acts in place limiting our 1st, 2nd, (continue the series all the way to 10) amendment freedoms. 

I’m not sure who will be behind the revolution.  I suspect members of the LDS Church may expect that Church leaders would lead the charge.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Consider this from Ezra Benson, “Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific Church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution.  Perhaps if he set up one at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet, for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe.” (“Not Commanded in All Things.” – Conference address April 5, 1965.  Please, read the talk in full.).  There are people I know, in whom the light of freedom burns so brightly, who will not be able to sit idly by watching the march toward tyranny. They may be part of that revolution.

I may live to see it.  My children certainly will.  People are talking about it.

I don’t like reading what I’ve written.  Do I have it wrong?  Is there a way to reverse the tide?  Without blood?  I wish.  I hope.  I pray.  But not in faith.