Tag Archives: 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.”

Advertisements

The U.S. Constitution—An Inconvenient Document

By Kellene Bishop

 

constitutionOur U.S. Constitution.  When I hear those words I swell up with pride and a sense of reverenced awe to realize that men from such diverse backgrounds and beliefs could have come up with such an inspired document.  Yes, it is not perfect in light of the many unprecedented ails that our country experiences today, but I firmly believe that it is a heavenly inspired document.  Just as the parting of the Red Sea, so did God cut through the clutter of biases, prejudices, and paradigms of those rather ordinary men to come together and create a guiding document that attempted to express and ensure universal fairness and a nation of true freedom.  Sadly, today that document is condemned by the very persons who take an oath to uphold it as irrelevant, archaic, and outdated. 

 

Many believe that to recognize our nation as unique is narcissistic and prideful.  It simply is not.  The fact that our nation was founded on the principles of true freedom—to act according to our own conscience so long as such actions did not tread on the freedoms of others—was based on the recognition of the true value of human life.  As such this nation was indeed the first and still is the most unique nation in the world.  No other nation has ever attempted to convey such freedoms to its citizens.  No other nation has ever believed enough in its citizens to acknowledge that such freedoms even belonged to its citizens.  The United States of America attempted to do that which had never been done before; to believe that a people would choose good over bad if permitted to make decisions for themselves, and as such to prosper in the pursuit of life, liberty, the pursuit of property, and happiness.  This belief was so fundamental to the birth of our nation that the millions of those who toiled and plowed for such a standard gave their lives in the selfless sacrifice of time, money, and even blood to seal their belief of such a notion. 

 

Have the history books ever mentioned any other document which has inspired such consistent goodness, sacrifice, and virtue before which influenced so many?  When it was first created, was there evidence of any evil intent to have tyrannical power of the people of this nation?  Even if the Constitution had conveyed a desire for power over the people at the time, it could not be enforced upon a people who were passionately ready for the responsibilities of freedom.  They could fathom nothing less at that time and they would accept nothing less. 

 

Today however, many attempt to dismiss the merits of the Constitution, not because its doctrines are faulty, but because such doctrines are seriously inconvenient to the duplicitous and tyrannical desires of those who are expected to uphold it. 

 

george-w-bush-war-on-terrorFor example, it wasn’t convenient for President G. W. Bush to wait until “probable cause” was evident prior to him taking down a suspected terrorist.  So he simply created various acts to eliminate such needs so long as the government agents were willing to “claim” that their investigations “may” benefit the results of a terrorist investigation.

 

The government was greatly inconvenienced by not being able to spend as much as they wanted to.  And according to the Constitution’s requirement of taxation WITH proper representation they were handcuffed.  So, “inconvenience be damned”, they claimed to have ratified an amendment that enabled them to tax the citizens of this nation egregiously.  (They never did ratify such an amendment, but they sure do like to pretend they did in hopes that we won’t pick up on it.)

 

Certain political parties are shackled with the merits of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, so they seek to create another bill, ironically called the “Fairness Doctrine” in an effort to eliminate those who would dare express any opposing views of the government with any semblance of influence.

 

And so it continues…

 

Unfortunately, the people as a whole are starting to get wise.  Their freedoms are starting to be seriously inconvenienced by a government that was supposed to working FOR them for no other purpose than to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution.  Essentially, this inconvenient document is the ONLY thing that ensures our government officials even have a job!  So the only way they can get around this is to attempt, with the help of the complacent media, to appropriately color that which is good, bad, and that which is truly bad, good.  They are attempting to usurp the foundations of this country by completely ignoring the laws of the Constitution.  Our government officials are also looking to other nations in hopes to uphold their decisions based on the improper popular decisions of foreign nations who never entertained our value system.  (That’s like a doctor wanting to get surgical advice from a mortician.)  “Well, the French courts ruled this way, so let’s try that,” or, “The U.N. seems to think like this, so let’s do that.”

 

legislationSadly, the U.S. Constitution has clearly become inconvenient to those who value freedom as well.  We work all day, everyday to pay our taxes so that those we’ve elected to office take care of ensuring such freedoms, only to find that these stewards of the people have been asleep on the job.  And they’ve slept through some of the most critical legislation in the history of our nation, to the point that they couldn’t even be bothered to read most of this legislation.  So now, not only do we have to work to pay our government to do their jobs and provide for our own families, we have to take what precious time we have left to make our voices heard, let them know that we are indeed monitoring them, and in some instances, even doing their job for them.  (see this CNN article)  Talk about an inconvenience, right?

 

This nation was indeed founded on that which is good.  It IS indeed unique—unique in that we were formed for the purpose of giving true freedom to the people, and empower the people to hire government officials to work for them to aid in ensuring such freedoms are upheld.  I agree, it isn’t convenient to have to make decisions for ourselves and not have everything dictated to us.  And it’s not convenient to have to take time to get educated about issues and candidates.  But it’s our freedom to do so just as much as it’s our freedom to fail in doing so.  While the constitution may be an inconvenient document for both good and evil causes, only a proactive inconvenience will ensure that it stands for that which we truly want.  Freedom.  

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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

 

The War in Heaven—Last Quarter

As I’m sure you’re all aware, the war in heaven took place for one primary reason. Satan proposed that we not be endowed with the ability to choose. He desired that we be forced to do all that we were “supposed” to do.  Satan was not innocent in proposing this plan. He wasn’t scolded merely for having a ridiculous brain storm idea. He was fully knowledgeable that this proposal was contrary to God’s will and wisdom. 
 

“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused the he should be cast down;” Moses 4:3 (emphasis added)

I can picture Satan trying to share with us all of the risks involved if we didn’t go with his plan. 

“What if you fail? It’s hard down there!

“Do you really want to have to go through all of that challenge and strife?”

“Do you really want to leave this beautifully perfect place merely to prove yourselves once again.”

“Aren’t things perfect enough for you now?”  and so on…  His weapon then, as it is now, was force, fear, and doubt.

As you know, it wasn’t enough for us to simply “boo and hiss” him into a silent submission.  His proposal was so vile, so evil, that we had to be much more aggressive than that to fight his plan. We had to engage in an all out war.  Even though we had double the army fighting against him in his desire, he still did not back down.  And even though he clearly knows “how the story ends” he still will not back down.  And so the very same war continues here on earth.

Ironically, Satan’s proposal plays a significant reason as to why things are so very difficult for us here on earth. I’m sure that things were much more blissful in the pre-mortal existence, but clearly there was a very significant component to our eternal progression missing.  This component was so critical that our Savior, Jesus Christ, was willing to suffer incomprehensibly just so that we could have it… and that critical component was the experience of exercising Agency.  (I dare not call it “free” Agency, lest I forget the heavy price that was paid for it.)


Understanding that the ability to choose is the only way in which we have any semblance of any Agency TO exercise, is a step in the right direction towards understanding why the U.S. Constitution required the guiding hand of the Lord. He not only provided it for us, as he did the 10 Commandments to Moses, but He even went so far as to hand-pick the men who would draft this “heavenly banner”, hand-pick the land upon which it would be instituted, and even selected the men who would fight for it’s full ratification against all odds.    


You see, one of Lucifer’s primary strategies is to “restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.” (David O. McKay, “The Constitution, A Heavenly Banner”)  He doesn’t need to necessarily tempt us with pornography, drugs, adultery, or other bold-face sins. He needs only to corrupt our government with evil men who will destroy our ability to choose and use that God-given agency. Then, as he lulls a perfectly free people into apathy, busy-ness, and naïveté, we will wake to find that our freedoms have disappeared from us all together. 


“And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them CAPTIVE at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.” Moses 4:4


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  –Thomas Jefferson


The only reason why a government was ever created in this land is to ensure that such rights would not be infringed upon.  And to this end, the government was created by the people, to serve the people and to protect their unalienable rights from the likes of Lucifer who would aim to destroy these rights. 


If you can look at every proposed bill, every government action in this light, you will see things more clearly. Ask yourself, does this proposed bill or process infringe on the ability of freedom or the right to choose?  If it does, then it is not of God nor His plan. 

 


Obviously, our Heavenly Father teaches us agency as much as He does consequences of those choices.  While we are free to choose our behavior, we are not free to choose the consequences.  No governmental ruling or shell game will ever change that.  A government of any kind can establish a rule to thwart a choice here on earth, but it will not be binding in the eternities. 


The Constitution was created in an effort to ensure that we can make eternal decisions today.  We experience freedom in many aspects of our lives which enable us to choose an to be sealed in the temple for all eternity, raising our children in righteousness, growing our own crops that we may be healthy and prepared for emergencies, and to provide service to our fellowman with a full purpose of heart.  What is alarming however is that every single one of those freedoms that I just mentioned are threatened by the actions of men who are not guided by God.  For example, our ability to be sealed in the temple is threatened with the proposals of gay marriage. Our ability to raise our children in righteousness is threatened with proposals which would require unrighteous topics to be taught in our schools. Our ability to grow our own food in our own way and to store up such food is threatened already by certain Executive Orders which have already been made and by bills which are presently before our Congress, and yes, even our ability to serve in righteousness is threatened by two issue which have received overwhelming support by our politicians in D.C.  If I had an entire day I could not begin to share with you all that has already been put into place to deprive us of our inherent, divine rights.  But perhaps it is not for me to do for you. Perhaps there is more value in you using the eternal gift of Agency as your own guide as you review what’s going on in the world around you and discerning by the Spirit whether a freedom is enhanced or lost.  I for one did not fight in a war in heaven only to lose here on earth–especially when the ending has already been determined for us.  That’s like betting on a horse that you know is going to lose, or buying a car that you know is going to break down. I intend to continue the fight with just as much faith and action now as I did then. I hope that you’ll join me.

HR 1388

hitler-youth

There may be many who you read that may seem “extreme” or “conspiratorial”. But please keep in mind that the evil of the adversary is as extreme and conspiratorial as one can get.  This is not a case of one crying wolf. This is critical that you take action on this now. 

Today I received a simple line on my Facebook wall from a new friend. The message listed a Washington DC phone number and a message saying “call your Rep act now before it becomes law hr 1388.”  Until today I had never heard of HR 1388 and yet I consider myself a Constitutional activist. To be honest, I’ve been quite busy writing my Women of Caliber blog message on women and guns, my Kellene Bishop blog on the injustice of using an unconstitutional tax as a weapon on AIG bonuses, and doing research for future writings.  When I saw this simple message on Facebook, I simply put it mentally on my list of things to do later this evening.  I had no idea just how vile this bill truly was, and that it might already be too late unless we take a much stronger stand.    As it turns out, while our nation has been distracted with other atrocities such as the AIG bail out and then subsequent gauche bonuses, there was something downright demonic being played out in Congress and the Senate. 

Many of you may be familiar with Hitler’s Nazi Youth Groups which consisted of youth ages 10-25.  They wore brown uniforms, participation was mandatory, and they were the source of many of Hitler’s initial troop drafts. In fact at one point in 1946, anti-aircraft batteries were officially manned solely by Hitler Youth boys. From 1940 to 1945, over 2.8 million German children were sent to these camps. There were separate Hitler Youth camps for boys and girls. About 5,000 camps were eventually in operation. Each camp was run by a Nazi approved teacher and a Hitler Youth squad leader. Reluctant parents were forced to send their children away to the camps.   Why am I telling you all of this? Because, our nation has just been accosted by a similarly unthinkable proposal, and it just passed the House.

Enter stage right HR 1388, otherwise known as The Give Act, which is dressed as a bill to promote service and volunteerism in an effort to change the apathetic face of Americans today. While this bill discusses in large part its focus on the youth of our nation, it is clear to include every American as it states the possibility “of all individuals in the United States are expected to perform national service or to perform a certain amount of national service.” What exactly is this bill including every American in, you may ask?  Mandatory volunteerism.  Yup. That’s not a misprint.  Here’s the scary part. When the 200 page bill was first drafted the word “Mandatory” was a part of it. Instead, the word “mandatory” was altered to read “involuntary servitude.”  Yup. Legalized slavery, folks.  This bill outlines a movement of volunteerism in which participation will be required, and it knows no boundaries on its reach of power. Funded with over $6 billion of our dollars, the outline of this program, aka legislation, also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training”  of future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.”  In the first draft the word “camp” was used instead of campuses.  This bill requires forced labor. Last I checked, mandatory community service was required only of criminals, not a free people!

Groups of such “volunteers” would, under the legislation, be “grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. … There shall be a superintendent for each camp.”

Another portion of the bill talks about a “service learning” plan that will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

This frightening bill passed the House with the following stipulations.  Keep in mind as you read them that this “mandatory volunteerism” will prevent individuals from use of free speech, free will, and any religious affiliation while they are indentured servants. You’ll be able to satisfy volunteer requirements with Planned Parenthood or ACORN but not your church or a pro-life group.

Hr 1388 ‘‘SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

‘‘(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted

The ramifications of this law are ominous at best.  Can you just imagine having to tell your young daughter or son, “Sorry kids, you can’t go and do the service project at the senior center tonight because you’re required to volunteer for Obama’s Service Corp.”

As long as this is the United States of America, volunteerism is a charitable act. What makes it charitable is because it is voluntary.  Hmmmm… requiring individuals to do what’s right.  That sounds like a fairly familiar proposal I fought against fiercely in the pre-mortal existence.  And now it’s just been passed into law by the Congress! You see folks, Satan doesn’t have to tempt us simply with pornography, gambling, drugs, adultery.  He can simply tempt us with apathy while he conquers our government. Once he conquers the government with evil, then we are powerless to use our agency to actually make good or bad choices. (See 3 Nephi chapter 7). And yet Subsection 136 and section 120 indicates this “service” is mandatory. Section 1710 suggests a pilot program, electronic filing, and RFID chips.

 

The following amendment to the bill also invokes a chilling reminder of a Nazi ruled past.  “to create a National Service Reserve Corps and requires an annual service requirement of at least 10 hours and/or annual training. A member of the National Service Reserve Corps is one who has completed a term of national service, fulfilled training, and will respond to national disasters and other emergencies. These individuals will be listed in a national database for the ease of immediate deployment in case of emergency.”

Many are raising concerns that this program is actually an execution of what President Obama referred to during one of his speeches last year.  Click here and listen to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s   See if you don’t get chills listening to it as I did. His program which is intended to include 250,000 “volunteers,” is ominously like his “National Civilian Security Force” he described last year when he urged “creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military.” His own website altered the words of his speech after it was given and softened it a bit. However, it still does reference the mandatory service he proposes of 50 hours of service required of grade school students and100 hours of service for college students each year. His site also stated that he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs. He has declined since then to elaborate.

I’ve never seen a bill rammed through this fast before. I’m shocked that so many “conservatives” voted for this bill.  It’s now before the Senate tonight as S 3577. Ring the phones all night folks. Ring them all day tomorrow. This is NOT a drill. This is critical! This is a battle which we must re-fight here on earth, right now! 

(To see how your Congressman voted, click here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2210006/posts )

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

Go and Do

nephi-go-and-do

Each of us has formed a “political” opinion about what is going on in the nation around us.  However, in Doctrine and Covenants 29:34 it reads “Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal.”   This scripture thus lays the foundation for us so that we should not be surprised when we receive the following guidance from the First Presidency. 

In a letter read during sacrament meetings throughout the U.S.  in January of 1998 the First Presidency encouraged the member of the Church to be “full participants in political, governmental and community affairs.” 

“We wish to reiterate the divine counsel that members ‘should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness,’ while using gospel principles as a guide and while cooperating with other like-minded individuals. (D&C 58:27)

            Through such wise participation as citizens, we are then in better compliance with this scripture:

            ‘Governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them.’ (D&C 134:1)

            Therefore, as in the past, we urge members of the Church to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs.  Members of the Church are under special obligations to seek out and then uphold those leaders who are ‘wise,’ good,’ and ‘honest.’ (See D&C 98:10)

            Thus we strongly urge men and women to be willing to serve on school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment, including involvement in the political party of their choice.”

Given that the law of this land (a.k.a. the Constitution is held to be sacred by the Lord, and that those who lead us and our opinions are responsible for assisting us in upholding the freedoms and rights as noted in the Constitution, then is it not reasonable to believe that we must come to our political conclusions via a diligent study of the scriptures and the words of our modern-day prophets rather that forming such opinions solely on the words given to us by the media, misguided neighbors and friends?  Are we even aware that the Lord has given us explicit and clear instructions in the scriptures relating to our government today in His Holy scriptures, specifically the Book of Mormon? 

            “…They have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

            Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (2 Ne. 28:14)

The very essence of this land is formed strictly upon a belief in God.  This land will tolerate no such beliefs if we do not uphold this “heavenly banner.” But how can we uphold this sacred Law which the Lord has seen fit to establish and protect over and over again that we might have the freedom to be joyful and to worship him appropriately, if we know not the Law is? 

The Law, as in the law which ensures our freedom, rights, liberties, and abilities to posses property is addressed over and over again in the Book of Mormon.  Is it any wonder then that the “whole church” is “under condemnation” which “condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them not only to say but to do according to that which I have written.”  (D&C 84: 55-57)

As I have read this passage of scripture over the years of seminary, church, a mission, being a teacher at the MTC, and church classroom teaching I have often wanted to know more of what is was that “the church as a whole” was doing so that the condemnation could be lifted.  I was anxious to find out more of what I could do so that my hands were at least clean in this regard.  I used to think that it was simply that we were not appreciating the Book of Mormon sufficiently in our lives and so I pressed on to read it more often.  But I was missing the boat…big time.  Now that I’ve come to actually read AND ponder AND study the Book of Mormon and allow myself to be taught by it and the Spirit, specifically about the state of the government and our dealings with such in order to ensure our freedoms, I have come to understand that the condemnation comes not simply from setting the Book of Mormon at naught, or a position not fitting of it’s importance in our lives, but more importantly the contents therein.  (I know. For those of you are more mature spiritually than myself, that may sound like a big fat DUH!)  Everything we are struggling with today with our government, the constitution and what we should do about it is clearly covered in the Book of Mormon with miraculous specificity for our day.  (Particularly 3 Nephi as a whole.) 

If you read 3 Nephi and substitute the Gadiantons as “the government” which we have today, you will discover with surprisingly clarity just how much the Lord knew of our time, our ways, the corruption of men, the perilous state of freedoms in the land, and exactly what we are to do about all of this.  I find the message and prophecies in 3 Nephi to be imploringly redundant in this matter, from a very loving Heavenly Father. “Prepare. Pray. Protect the Law.” This is especially clear in the dealings of the people of Lachoneus against the Gadiantons and their leaders, Giddianhi. (3 Nephi chapters 2 thru 7)

Referencing D&C 84: 57 again, I make a special note of the instructions that we “not only to say but to do…”  I hear many say “we must take our country back,” “we cant’ let them get away with this,” “I pray that He will save our country,” when all that really does is contribute to the “saying” and not the “go and do” contrary to the consistent example we have from Nephi the son of Lehi. 

This country is a great gift to all of us.  And it is indeed a massive ship to be built and cared for that we might all arrive to the Promise Land with as many of our brothers and sisters as is possible.  However, many of us must indeed “go and do” and pray for direction as to “how to build the ship” and indeed “he (will) nourish (us) and strengthen (us) and provide the means whereby (we) can accomplish the thing which He has commanded (us).  (1 Ne. 17 3)He will indeed be our light in these matters, however we must open the way for him to influence us even in matters which may appear to be political or temporal unto the rest of the world that we may form wise and true conclusions as to what is really going on around us and what we must truly do to overcome. 

Yours in Freedom,

Kellene

 

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

The IRS (Illegal Revenue Service)

irs

Whenever I speak ill of the Internal Revenue Service with my friends (members and non alike) I usually get this look like I’ve got 4 heads.  I admit, it does seem quite radical.  10 years ago I still thought my parents were some kind freak hippies to want to home school their children.  I also thought that firearms were only used by bad men, and I that FDA was always acting in the best interest of our nation.  Fortunately, I’ve come a long ways in the last decade.  And I’ve done so with getting real information and then acting on it. 

So today I’m going to provide you with some information that you have most likely just been too busy to garner.  Ultimately I’m going to request that you use your gift of conscience to determine if what I’m sharing with you is accurate or not.  If it is accurate, then you will obviously need to take action on it in order to ensure your support of the U.S. Constitution—Remember “when an individual of an unjust government measure and uses all of his influence against it, no blame should be attached.  Justice demands that each be held only for those acts which have his approval or support.”

There is this myth which states that the 16th Amendment of our Constitution is what gives the authority of our government to tax us on our income.  Please note that the Supreme Court ruled on this issue already stating that “the 16th Amendment does NOT give our government any additional authority or power to tax us” than did the 5th Amendment already. The Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population.  The federal income tax is a direct tax that is NOT apportioned, and thus illegal. Additionally, we are told that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 by 3/4ths of the states. This is also incorrect.  If you go to the state house records directly you will see that UT, CT, RI, FL, and NH did not support the 16th Amendment.  VA and PA were never heard from. VT and MA later did ratify after the declaration, but did so without following their own state constitution procedures.  And KY, OK, TX, TN, MI, OH, AR, MN, NM, WV, IN, NV, NC, ND, CO, CA, and IL all violated their own constitutional procedures to attempt to ratify the Amendment and thus their ratifications cannot be counted.  This brings us to only 20 states which legally ratified the 16th Amendment.  Not anywhere near the required three-fourths majority.

The ratification of the 16th Amendment was not simply an error. It was a bold faced fraud on the American people perpetuated by Secretary of State Philander Knox.  (See the following link for more details.  http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm)

Do we truly have freedom in this nation if the whistle blowers have the peace and sanctity of their lives threatened simply for asking serious questions? With so much power held by this one agency which refuses to allow legally permissible discovery and questioning,(and gets away with it) do we believe that our  judges are safe to make just decisions behind the bench?  Is it possible that the livelihood of these judges, their career, their home and their family can be seriously threatened and at risk by the “untouchable” IRS?  The only people who should have anything to fear in this nation are those who break the law. Simply asking repeatedly for the IRS to produce the law by which they believe they are acting fairly should not merit a threat of life and livelihood.  And yet it occurs frequently.  Using one’s free speech to encourage and enlighten other law abiding citizens to stand up to this atrocity should not result in fear of indefensible retribution. And yet as I write this, I realize that I may now be audited mercilessly, or can even be thrown into jail without charge as an enemy combatant of the U.S., when in fact it is the majority of our government leaders who are traitors to this nation. 

Not only is this particular tax illegal, it is also IMMORAL.  It is the government who takes from one to give to another such as those who have not justly handled their own finances, or those who got in over their heads with credit card and mortgage debt, or those who struggle with getting a job because they have not learned our language and have come here illegally. 

President Ezra Taft Benson said: We have accepted a frightening degree of socialism in our country.  The question is, how much?  The amount of freedom depends upon the amount of federal control and spending.  A good measurement is to determine the amount, or percentage of income of people that is taken over and spent by the state…They now advocate throughout our economy that we ‘redistribute wealth and income’, a good definition of socialism.” 

These men and women in who act with unrighteous dominion and power, which we have given to them freely, not only steal this levy of money, but they also have burdened us beyond our ability to ever being relieved of this debt through these enormous sums of bail out monies and “stimulus” monies. We fought an entire revolution over taxation without representation.  And yet this stimulus bill was passed without representation because it was not even READ by those who voted on it.  That’s not only a lack or representation of “we the people,” but an abandonment of even their own conscience since they acted in willful ignorance.

Do you realize that even if we were all taxed at over 50% we would still never pay off this debt just from the interest alone?  Do you realize that the federal income taxes that we DO pay do not go towards anything else but the INTEREST on the money we have received from the Federal Reserve?  No. Your monies do not go towards the repair of highways.  Your gasoline tax pays for that, and yet now you’ve been double taxed by the “stimulus” packaged adding an earmark to the stimulus package for highway repairs and expansion.  Your property taxes pay for education and yet we’ve now been double taxed because the stimulus package has been earmarked with money to go towards this cause as well. I could go on and on with this, but I think you get my point.  With yet another proposal for more of this illegally gained money to be spent, it’s clear that our government has no respect of the sanctity of this nation or its freedoms.  Reread what President Harold B. Lee stated about us partaking of government subsidies.  Perhaps you are hurting financially right now and the prospect of having some money spent in this manner is appealing to you so that you can have some relief. But it is clearly IMMORAL for us to TAKE from one person to give to another.  That’s not charity folks. That’s theft.

Well there you have it.  I’ve attached some other links to this topic for your perusal for additional information.  You can read of the IRS Whistleblowers and what their life has been like in doing so. http://www.irs-armory.com/read/wistleblowers.htm

 You can also read of one instance in which a former IRS agent actually WON his case which the IRS brought against him to decimate him and his livelihood.  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956

You can also read of the doctor who was assaulted in his office and put into jail immediately for not paying a small sum of taxes.  http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd25.htm

I’m wondering if Wesley Snipes was actually legal in his tax actions, but the judges were under threat from the IRS if they ruled in his favor since he was such a high profile figure??

 

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

Are We Accessories to a Crime?

(In the interest of full disclosure, for today’s topic I have drawn heavily from the scriptures, H. Verlan Anderson’s book “Many Are Called, Few Are Chosen” and President Benson’s talk, “The Constitution—A Heavenly Banner.”)

In Doctrine and Covenants 104: 17 it reads “For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea I prepared all things, and have given unto children of men to be agents unto themselves.”

There is so much in this one verse that is relevant to many of the policies and laws that we are seeing today.  And as they relate to the Constitution I felt that it was important to discuss. 

The elements of freedom which we must possess in order to accomplish our purposes are 1) life, 2) liberty, 3) property and 4) knowledge.

Wealth, or organized raw materials, is an essential ingredient of freedom: First, because our very survival depends upon access to such things as food, clothing, and shelter; secondly, because the right and control of property permits us to increase our physical and mental powers almost without limit. By utilizing tools, machinery, equipment, and harnessing electrical, nuclear, and other forms of energy, our ability to achieve our purposes is raised to the ‘nth’ power. 

If you deny a person access to the necessities of life, of course he will die.  If you deny him these necessities unless he does what you say, you can make him your slave because most of us will obey nearly any command to remain alive.  As Alexander Hamilton has said:  “A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power of his will.” –Federalist Papers No. 79

The Lord makes it clear that we have plenty on this earth for ALL and even some to spare. Considering that our Creator loves us more than we can ever fathom, has unfathomable mansions and kingdoms prepared for us, and desires us to be happy, stating that He has enough for us ALL and them some is not to be taken lightly.  It is clear that the right to and the control of property is a basic element of freedom and is vital as life and liberty, neither of which are of any value without it. 

When we deprive another of this element by stealing, destroying, or otherwise denying him the right to control what he owns, we have to this same extent diminished his freedom and violated the laws of God and man.  On the other hand, when we use the strength of our minds and bodies to organize wealth and provide ourselves and others with the necessities of life, or the means of achieving life’s goals, we are obeying God’s commandments to work and be charitable with what we produce. 

So, do WE as members of the Church of Jesus Christ deprive another of one of the most basic elements of freedom, that of the control of that which he owns?  As stated in my post this past Monday, the prophets have made clear that we cannot be neutral with regards to the behavior of our government.  If we can elect our leaders then we are responsible for their actions which protect and endorse freedom or destroy it.  As such, if there are actions which we do not endorse, we must use “all our influence” to wash our hands clean of such actions.  So, as long as our government is not stealing, destroying, or otherwise denying our citizens the right to control and protect what he owns, we’re innocent.  The problem, such actions are being perpetuated by our elected officials, and unless each and every one of us has made it perfectly clear with all our influence that we do not endorse such actions, then the sin is upon our individual heads.  In fact freedom IS the power and opportunity to affect the freedom of others.

I realize that this is indeed an inconvenient truth for us to embrace.  There is so much that we would rather be doing other than “babysitting” our government.  But who will contend that the Lord uses one moral law when the individual acts alone and still a different law when he acts jointly with other whether in a gang, a mob, OR a government.

Doctrine and Covenants 134: 2 reads: “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

Property is derived from labor.  Moral man has always recognized that the wealth produced by a person belonged to him. (At least that’s what Apostle Verlan Anderson says, but I’m afraid that there are very few government leaders who truly believe that now.) Theft, robbery, arson and all other forms of TAKING or DESTROYING another’s property have always been regarded as both evil and criminal. If government uses force to accomplish the immoral purposes of depriving another of his property, and we do not stand up to promote an act to the contrary, then our hands are not clean before our Lord.

While I had intended to explore some examples of our government leaders stealing and plundering, I found that each instance required an entire synopsis on it’s own.  Thus it was far too lengthy to be a “part” of this exploration.  Instead I have chosen to provide you with the fundamental counsel from our prophets and simply allow you to connect the dots.  As you do so, consider this…  If there is an instance in which the lawful possession and protection of property of any kind is being compromised, then it is indeed a criminal act.  So consider certain taxes, threats to eliminate possession of guns or any other like property, actions of The Federal Reserve, funds allocation for “bail outs,” not protecting our borders from incoming criminals which would rob us of our safety, property or lives, etc.  Decide what you need to voice your opposition or support on an issue and then “go and do” in order that your hands may be clean. 

The right and duty of self-government provides a rare opportunity to labor for the cause of freedom, to learn firsthand the operation of the law of retribution and to cooperate with the Lord in enforcing it. 

If the Lord is going to hold each of us morally accountable for every coercive act of government of which we approve, it is of the utmost important the we be able to accurately discern the good from the evil in government action. We accomplish this through a test of conscience. 

On of the most approved and righteous of all callings is to INCREASE freedom by disseminating truth, thereby increasing men’s ability to reach their goals.  Are you willing to accept such a calling?

Yours In Freedom,

Kellene

 

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