Tag Archives: freedom

America–A Sacred Land

By Kellene Bishop

Many of the wars and rumors of wars exist in the world as the result of the Jews and Muslims fighting to protect the locations which are sacred to them. The Mount of Olives, the Dome of the Rock, the Tomb of David, the Tomb of Rachel, and so on and so forth; all of these have merited untiring protection and defense by those who believe they are sacred. 

While the violence ensues and the wars erupt from a spirit of sentryism is not ideal, the valiance and willingness to fight for that which is sacred should be something that we as Latter-Day Saints pay heed to.

The Promised Land by Arnold Friberg

The Promised Land by Arnold Friberg

This nation is indeed The Promised Land, and it is favored above all other lands upon this earth by God himself. The words ‘promised’, ‘choice’, and ‘favored’ should not be taken lightly when used by the Lord. Surely He is not insincere or unknowledgeable in the use of such descriptive words. Yet in a moment of somber honesty with ourselves, many of us have to admit that we rarely give any thought to the sacredness of this land and its accompanying freedom. Yes, for some our hearts are momentarily stirred when we view great historical monuments of our American history such as the Liberty Bell, or a copy of the original Declaration of Independence. Perhaps our hearts flutter a bit when we witness the grandeur and beauty of the works of His hand at Niagara Falls or The Grand Canyon. But do we really appreciate the truly sacred nature of this land? If so, what are we doing to protect it? What would we be willing to do to protect the sanctity and holiness of our own temples and the freedom to operate them appropriately?

Why is it that scores of prophets have been shown the history of this land and its significance? No other portion of the earth has been endowed with greater significance in His Plan than has this continent. Permit me to remind us just how sacred and choice this land is to the Lord.

Human life began on this continent. As such our father Adam and our mother Eve dwelt here and raised their children here and their children’s children. Such events began in a beautiful place known as the Garden of Eden right here in North America¹. This also means that God and His Son literally communicated with Adam and Eve on this very land.

Methuselah lived nine-hundred and sixty-nine years here. His grandson Noah, built the Ark on this land. The City of Enoch was built and then taken up from this land.²

One of the most magnificent civilizations ever was established here by the hand of the Lord and was greater than any contemporary kingdoms. This kingdom would even rival that of the Babylonian, Assyrian, Chinese and Egyptian civilizations.³ The Jaredites existed on this land from 2300 to 600 B.C. until they destroyed themselves.

Every single Book of Mormon prophet that we have come to know and love resided on this very soil. Christ our Lord appeared to the inhabitants of this land. (See 3 Nephi)

The First Vision c/o lds.org

The First Vision c/o lds.org

God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared simultaneously in this land and conversed with a young man, Joseph Smith. (See The First Vision)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored on the earth in this very land. (See Doctrine and Covenants)

The Priesthood keys were fully restored to worthy men on this continent. This sacred restoration was performed by the literal hands of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John and the great prophet Elijah.4

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is guided and directed daily by a prophet of God from this land to all the earth.

It is here that the Lord’s New Jerusalem will be established.5 “Zion will indeed arise and shine” on this land. A great temple will be built in the New Jerusalem unlike any other and will be built not only with the hands of those who are called to assist, but with the aid of the Lord himself and angels from beyond the veil.6 (President Wilford Woodruff)

It is to this very continent that the lost Tribes of Israel will be gathered and assist in building up His Kingdom here on the earth during the Millennial Reign.

It is upon this ground which we live that the Lord himself will officially take over and administer the governing powers for all the earth. Here He will administer His Pre-Millennial plan in the last days.

Equally as important is the fact that this land was blessed with the greatest level of freedom of any other in the world by the hand of the Lord and through much sacrifice and bloodshed. It was required that His plans could be carried out unencumbered and in accordance to the Plan of Salvation. Such freedom stands as a beacon of light and hope to dozens of nations who have attempted to emulate it.

Wow. Take a moment to breathe that all in. And to think that this is not all that has transpired or that will in the future. I am convinced that if any one of these events were believed to have taken place in Palestine that all of the surrounding physical areas would likewise be fiercely protected. Don’t you?

Dallin H. Oaks at General Conference c/o ldschurchnews.com

Dallin H. Oaks at General Conference c/o ldschurchnews.com

With such great blessings comes significant responsibilities. What good are these events of the past, present, and future if we do nothing to protect their significance, our ability to honor them, and our freedom to benefit from them by worshipping freely? Do we not realize that our regular involvement in protecting a perfect and unadulterated freedom of our nation is inseparable with our religious beliefs? (See Elder Dallin H. Oaks talk in the October, 2009 General Conference) Yet evil and its ugly stepsister, apathy, abound in our nation, even in the membership of the Church. We make far too many decisions based on what we THINK is the “here and now.” I am no exception to the masses who fail to humbly and prayerfully consider how our actions will aid or mitigate the work of the Lord on this nation. I too have been guilty of naively categorizing my life into areas of spiritual or political when in fact there are no such delineation. In fact, our political decisions are no less spiritual than will be the governmental reign of the Lord. Have we ever read anything by any prophet which would tell us otherwise? Have we ever read any passage of scripture that would tell us that we need not be diligent in our political actions every whit as much as those of our worship? Indeed, we cannot separate the two. Freedom is inseparable from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus our passions and efforts to preserve freedom must be equally proliferated and prominent in our lives. Freedom was the crux of the war in heaven and it is still being fought on this land today.

Is it really any wonder that we seem to be losing so much of our freedom? The principle of Freedom is as much the soul of this country as the Spirit is to our justification to enter God’s presence.7 We are not ignorant of the devotion of our enemies as manifested in their daily prayers to the god which they worship. The powers of darkness clearly respond to such allegiance. What could we accomplish if we prayed as much for righteousness and freedom in this land as fervently as our enemies pray for evil?

May we better appreciate what we are protecting—our sacred lands, God’s plan of freedom, and a joyous future of our families—and may we act accordingly in our daily remembrance and devotions.

1 Cowley, Matthias, Wilford Woodruff, p. 481

2 Smith, J. F., The Progress of Man, p. 249

3 Ether 3:1

4 D&C 27:8-12

5 Ether 13:2-8

6 Cowley, Op. Cit., p. 505

7 Moses 6:60

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

Hatch and Bennett–Modern-Day Kishkumen

Utah Senators Bennett and Hatch are “Mormon,” are they not? Then why would a member of the Church have any problem with their politics?  Why would a member of the Church dare to compare them to Kishkumen in the Book of Mormon? Well, today I’m going to do just that.  It’s unfortunate that it will ruffle the feathers of many. I regret that result. Not because I feel that I am a perpetrator of contention, but because my reasoning and rationale will fall on deaf ears of good people who could make a difference if they truly understood. 

Today I received an e-mail from Senator Hatch’s office.  It was entitled “Open E-mail to All Republicans for Orrin Hatch.”  Why I personally received this e-mail, I have no idea.  I’ve previously made my distrust and dissatisfaction of the actions of both Senators very clear.  In his e-mail Sen. Hatch says, Today we are going to take some of the good Utah values that we hold so dear and make Washington stand up and take notice…”  He goes on to say that he is going to propose two amendments to the health care bill. While the substance of the amendments in and of themselves have merit (putting the horror of abortion, especially federally funded ones, in their proper place of evil) my objection to his amendments is that he’s merely attempting to put lipstick on a pig. 

Why are Senators Bennett and Hatch tolerating the proposal of the health care bill in the first place?  What scripture do they read that states that you can demand and take money from one person to pay for another?  What part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ says that we are entitled to health care? What lessons did they miss in the scriptures that compare egregious taxations to slavery?  Just as importantly, tell me where in the U.S. Constitution does it state that Congress, or ANY political leader, has the authority and power to do ANYTHING with healthcare on a governmental basis? Where does it give them the authority whatsoever to be working on bills that have to do with nationalized (Socialized) healthcare??

Rather than fighting full board against a bill that is designed to bring more control to our Federal government, and destroy choice, accountability and personal liberty in the process, these senators are working on “amending it.” This is not helping Utah or Americans. This is simply politics in its most base form, as usual. These actions do nothing to restore liberty, sovereignty and independence.

Captain Moroni had no tolerance for individuals such as these. He struck down those who did not fight FOR freedom—as in put their very lives at risk for it—not simply butter it up, take it out to lunch, and perhaps amend it.

I can’t stress enough that there is no such thing as “just politics.” All of our actions which we may want to compartmentalize and label as “just politics” have significant and eternal spiritual consequences. 

A point to remember. Senator Hatch provided the deciding vote on the gun ban in 1994.  It now seems that he is also positioning himself to do the same with this healthcare bill.  Senator Hatch was the AUTHOR of the heinous Serve America Act with Kennedy!

Bennett is more concerned about reelection, after promising that he would only serve 2 terms, than he is about the freedom of Americans. I have not found ONE bill that Bennett sponsored or co-sponsored which enhanced the freedom of our nation and the integrity of the Constitution. (Maybe he’s lost count of the number of years he’s served?)

Why did Bennett and Hatch vote FOR the clearly evil Cass Sunstein as the regulatory czar when it’s clearly unconstitutional to even have czars! Sunstein has made no secret that he wants to rewrite the Constitution, limit access to free speech on the internet, television, and radio, and claims that “ironclad convictions cannot be allowed” and “open-mindedness should be mandatory” and “there is no liberty without dependency.” (Doesn’t that sound like it’s right out of the adversary’s playbook?!) Further, Sunstein doesn’t believe in individual’s rights, but in the rights of a community, county, or region. So how could Bennett and Hatch stand in FAVOR of such a being given power to regulate our rights?  You can’t believe that Bennett and Hatch were ignorant of this man’s beliefs and intents when they voted FOR evil.

Ok, I’m getting a bit riled.  This isn’t about a particular party.  This is about people who claim to believe in the Gospel but who vote and behave in direct contradiction to it.  In Doctrine & Covenants 98:5-10 it specifically talks about how the law of the land is supporting the principle of freedom and is justifiable before God.  In verse 6 it specifically states that the saints are to befriend the constitution. And if there is any further doubt about the place of the Constitution in our land for our day, Doctrine and Covenants 101:77 clearly states that HE caused the Constitution to be established.  Unless you believe that the Doctrine & Covenants is no longer relevant to our day, we must be valiant in supporting the Constitution as it is given to us by a loving and wise Heavenly Father. 

Bottom line, the U.S. Constitution is not to be ignored, marginalized, or weakened by our acts (or a lack of action)—and certainly not by those who have been entrusted to support the Constitution. “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”   I know that I am willing to hold true to such an oath. Are you? Then PLEASE vote, protest, stand firm, and be the solution accordingly.

September 8, 2009–Make it a Day of Freedom!

By Kellene Bishop

President Obama Photo: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

President Obama Photo: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

In response to a recent article posted by World Net Daily: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108653

I implore you to remember.  Remember that as parents and guardians, you have a choice. You can choose freedom or indoctrination and manipulation. Remember that parents are responsible to watch and be wary of what their children are subjected to. I wouldn’t subject my children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or kids of my friends to this man’s words any more than I would to pornography or a Muslim hate speech.

September 8, 2009 is a day in which ALL parents/guardians should exercise their freedom by keeping their children at home. Come on. We keep the children at home so that teachers can mentally regroup or so that we can honor the veterans who fought for our country.  Surely this date is just as deserving.  Make this date a true a FREEDOM DAY! Show Washington D.C. that you will NOT allow them to raise your children. That you don’t condone this man’s methods. That you don’t respect him as a guardian to the youth in your life. Show them that liars, thieves, and whoremongers do not merit the attention and focus of our children except in moments of self-defense. Show the powers that be that they exist solely to serve you, and not the other way around. Remind them who really rules this nation–We the People. Do not force your children to bow down to the self-anointed King Obama!

I’m not asking you to stand on the bridge at Lexington with a loaded gun.  I’m not asking you to sacrifice the lives of your sons and daughters as they go off to fight in a war for freedom. I’m not asking you to sacrifice your uttermost farthing. I’m not asking you to attend a Tea Party or other rally. I’m begging you to do this one simple act so that you can clearly show your demand of freedom—freedom from governmental oppression. Freedom from forced indoctrination. Freedom to act and choose that which is good over that which is questionable!

Freedom-Print-C10086265If you can’t take this one simple stand on Sept. 8, 2009, then what can you really do? Then begs the question “do you deserve the freedom that’s provided to you every day?” What will your children have in 10 years from now?

Show your children that freedom isn’t a passive gift. Show them that it’s a gift from God, not from some man standing in front of a fancy seal and mocking the flag of our nation.  This is the SAME man who threatens to forcibly vaccinate your children, steal thousands of dollars from you to give to criminal CEO heads, lies to you about his health care plan, lies to you about what the real state of inflation and the Consumer Price Index really is, and disrespects your religious beliefs by claiming that they don’t exist or that they are akin to those of right wing extremists. Is this a man you want your children to listen to? Frankly, you would truly educate your children more if you had them listen with you to a tirade by Hitler, Mussolini, Charles Manson, or Karl Marx.

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

Do We Have the Freedom to Be Apathetic?

By Kellene Bishop

captain-moroni-art-title-of-liberty

Captain Moroni Title Of Liberty artist unknown

Today I wrote an article for Women of Caliber about sitting ducks and how they actually endanger the lives of those around them. In writing this article, I realized that Captain Moroni dealt with such individuals. He understood their danger to the safety of others, even those who were risking their lives and fighting for the freedom and well-being of their own country. He gave the “sitting ducks” an ultimatum—either fight for freedom or die.

To recap, as you may recall in Alma chapter 51, the Kingmen refused to take up arms against the attacking Lamanites. Verse 13 of Alma 51 specifically says they were “wroth” with the “people of liberty” and as such would not take up arms to defend their country. Moroni calls this action “stubbornness” (vs. 14) actually, not ignorance or a stance on ones’ own beliefs. The verse states that his soul filled with anger against them. The governor apparently agreed with this justified anger of Moroni and thus authorized him to compel any dissenters to defend the country’s freedom and liberty or to be put to death—yea, even to “level them to the earth.” (vs. 17) Why such a final reaction towards those who choose to do nothing? Verse 16 clearly identifies the apathy of the dissenters as “the cause of all their destruction.”

Certainly we don’t believe that Captain Moroni was some kind of a controlling tyrant. I believe that he clearly understood that liberty simply could not be had if not diligently fought for. If the valiant were to fight for freedom only to have it dwindle in their homes while they were away, then there would be no reason to fight for its existence as the flame of freedom would easily be squelched by those who viewed it as insignificant.

I wonder today how many of us really are just sitting ducks? How many of us put so much else above the type of freedom that this brave prophet fought for? He valued freedom above all else, realizing that all else was impossible to enjoy without it. There is no religious freedom without it. Without it we lose the marriages in our sacred temples. We lose the establishment of the Priesthood. We lose the freedom to share the Gospel with others. We lose the ability to raise our children in righteousness. And we even risk losing the liberty to declare our own beliefs.

Today we are not yet “compelled to hoist the title of liberty” however, those of us who ignore doing so will indeed be compelled to live in a manner which we do not enjoy. It’s simply a matter of consequences. So in answer to the question, do we really have the freedom to be apathetic? While it may seem that we have the freedom to do just about anything we want in today’s liberal climate, ultimately our Heavenly Father has shared with us that the freedom we may believe in now is merely a smoke screen that comes with delayed consequences. We must truly be diligent in fighting for liberty and freedom in all that we do or else settle for the inevitable outcome.

Fighting for freedom isn’t just about wielding a gun or a sword. It’s about the movies we pay to support, the politicians we elect, the businesses we patronize, the people we associate with, the media stories we believe in and circulate, and how and what we do with our abilities to defend our homes and families both spiritually and physically. I believe that our apathy today is indeed “the cause of all our destruction.”

Unfortunately, the enemy of liberty never takes a break. He is crafty, diligent, and unscrupulous. Can we afford to be any less diligent in our opposition of such a threat?

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

Standing for the RIGHT Cause?

In just the last few days alone my e-mail has been pommeled with “Please support” such and such causes. Among which have been the following

  1. not paying for Facebook (which is ridiculous b/c FB has made it perfectly clear that this is just a rumor
  2. grieving more for Michael Jackson
  3. grieving for Farah Fawcett
  4. creating the biggest FB group ever -million dollar entrepreneurs
  5. cooking with sprouts
  6. learning how to enhance your sleep
  7. Reliv
  8. Xango

and a list goes on and on. While I think that none of these are “bad” causes per se, the deliverance of their message is damaging because they ignore and distract from a much more perilous cause–that of the freedom and honor of our country.  The enemy of best really is good.

Why don’t we have a MILLION members of THIS group? Is patriotism that dead even among our own faith? Have we forgotten the honor, sacrifice, and integrity of those of our own faith who have fought valiantly so that we might have the freedom of religion? Have we forgotten that God bestowed this great nation of freedom upon us so that He might restore the Priesthood powers to the earth? Do we not realize that without freedom we cannot exercise those powers, rights, and ordinances freely?  Do we not realize that without this nation we don’t even have access to the sacred temple ordinances that we should value so dearly?

We have millions of voting members in this nation, and yet we are silent in the name of visiting and home teaching duties, raising a family, holding family home evening, and attending our other meetings. Don’t we realize that without the freedoms that already have been sorely trampled we are losing the freedom and liberty to pursue such eternally effective actions?

We must put first things first. Right now our nation is at peril. Preserving it must be our focus. Our very lives are thus at peril, let alone the freedom that our forefathers and the prophets of the Book of Mormon lost their lives to preserve. Is this how we SHOW our testimony of the Gospel?

I’m pleased that we have 400 members of this site. But let’s face it, these “members” only represent people who really have only taken a moment to post that they have an “interest” in such a topic.  I am dismayed at the lack of comments, causes, and true proactive movement that I see in this group and among our nation. Are we not the holders of light to the rest of the world–not just as members of His church but as citizens of this nation? Where is our light? Is it drowned out by the glare of the television, the computer screen, or the movie theatre?

We cannot afford to be silent any longer. We MUST bring about change in this nation. We must act. We must ALL write letters, send faxes, and make telephone calls for the freedom and liberties that we hold dear in order that the Gospel may continue to roll forth fully in the lives of our own citizens and the rest of the world. So very, very much good can be realized in our own lives and in the lives of the rest of the world if we will but take a stand against evil. Yes, indeed we hold inherent within us THAT much power for good.

May we pray in earnest that we may recognize the truth of ALL things that we may ACT accordingly. And then may we exercise our duty and right to uphold that truth vigilantly!

If you would like to follow me on twitter, my Twitter account is @preparednesspro.

If you would like to “friend” me on Facebook, you can do so by going to http://www.facebook.com/kellene.

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.”