I am very conflicted by the discovery and the ramifications should they be verifiable, because the implications are profound. It also presents the members of the 1^st Congress in the traditional role of a politician instead of as a more virtuous noble character. It is not unusual when doing this type of research that you will stumble across other things unlooked for. This case is no exception, I discovered several exceptionally well researched sites claiming disturbing things relating to the 13^th amendment. There is overwhelming evidence that in 1819 the 13^th amendment as ratified as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. The evidence is  compelling as it is reflected in the historic records of Colorado and Wyoming, Maine, The British Museum (particularly disturbing)and many other sources that in or around 1876 it was thrown away and replaced with what is represented as the 13^th amendment. Some evidence shows the currently accepted 13^th amendment as the TONA and the current 13^th amendment as the 14^th amendment. One shows the previously stated order with the 15^th amendment in agreement. There are many questions as to the legitimacy of the ratifications of the 16^th and 17^th amendment. The records of the states are in conflict

What is readily apparent is the respect and deference paid to the documents is not reflective of their actual treatment . The claim of Rule of Law is only that, there is no respect or belief that the people and government stand as equals before the law and they never have.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti12.html#167-1

This link will take you to a site that raises issues with the 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, and 17^th amendments. What becomes clear is Congress does not believe the amendment process is important. If an inconvenient conflict arises the Constitution stops being the supreme law of the land

The language of TONA which the call the original 13^th amendment bars Hillary Clinton from ever holding office and her time as Secretary of State was in violation of the law

As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendmentwas proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and graft of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of"Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

As noted in the discussion ⁶⁹ in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted,

The biggest problem facing a free people is death. Not because it is the next frontier where we go on to know the grace and glory of God, the eternal damnation of hell, return to the planet in another form, or just lie in the ground and rot. It is the disruption it causes to the flow of information and the passage of knowledge from one generation to the next. It forces us to rely on the character and integrity of others to be truthful and accurate in the archiving and interpretation of the historic record. This is the tool of the Social Engineer. It is how they can take what is vile and unacceptable and turn it into into the new normal. Because we weren’t there when those critical moments in time happened we are forced to rely on historical records. Direct knowledge is limited to those who were present at the time things happen. It is a weakness that evil uses to manipulate the truth, create false narratives, and push agendas; for the sole purpose of corrupting the innocent.

When the world only had one underlying political philosophy maintaining the integrity of the historic records did not matter. The king, being king could write history any way he wished. No one would question it, after all God selected the King, the King selected the court and attainders, who are the people to question the will of God? They call this theory the Divine Right of Kings and ruling authority vests to a bloodline until taken by force. It assumes servitude is the natural condition of man and the theory has only been challenged once. In its most benevolent form the people may suggest, but government is never obligated to listen. Social status is defined by a persons’ proximity to the pinnacle of government. The closer you are, the more power, comfort and prestige you are entitled to. The construct is sinple, government is the sovereign and people are the servants.

Total control and absolute authority is a powerful opiate. That is why it has remained the dominant belief system on the planet today. Only one country has ever rejected the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.  It is a philosophy that doesn’t permit free will, and stands in direct contradiction to the concept of liberty. In my mind’s eye, I people pointing at Europe and saying those are free societies. Those are not free countries. Those nations permit a few trappings of freedom to create an illusion. While the citizens may have been granted the privilege of questioning the actions and decisions of their government; that privilege has never extended to questioning their governments authority to make those decisions or take those actions.

Now that Europe is solidly under the thumb European Union it has dropped the façade of benevolence. When the results of national elections do not agree with its agenda and predetermined course of action they simply hold another election. It doesn’t matter what the people think. Using every trick in the book to get themselves in the front door through national elections they now use the claim that international law trumps national sovereignty. In defiance of national sentiments member countries deplete their national treasuries paying homage to the new overlords. Now the people have no direct contact with the people making the substantive decisions impacting their daily lives.

Just look at the migrant issue, oops that was 2 months ago, now they are called refugees. The people of Europe, finally seeing the impacts of the EU’s lax immigration policies resisted tried to say no at the Syrian border. All it took was one member country, Germany, to state the would accept them and all the borders of Europe were forced open so the refugees can cross through to Germany. The fact that most don’t arrive is irrelevant. Earlier this year our economy was feeling the impact of Greece’s financial difficulty because of the interrelationships of the world’s central banks. Many simply looked at it as payback for the 2007-2008 meltdown of the US housing market.

Like a carnival huckster convincing a mark that the games not rigged, globalists have been cutting deals under the guise of making things better. Better for who? Just look at the United States history with international trade deals. Once they are signed they can’t be revoked. Instead of the increased economic activity that was promised we’ve seen the wholesale export of our industrial and heavy manufacturing industry. Our trade deficits have been used to construct the industrial and manufacturing infrastructure to the emerging market countries. In just 50 years this country has gone from the self sufficiency of producing over 90% of our consumer goods to importing almost 90% of our consumer goods. Good paying union manufacturing jobs have been replaced by Starbucks. The result is income levels drop along with our standard of living.

Article 3 Section2 of the constitution states the Supreme Court is granted sole judicial jurisdiction over treaties, yet in practice they abrogate that responsibility to the authority of international courts and tribunals. Yet there is no Constitutional amendment creating the authority to make such a delegation. Article 6 Section2 states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land so how can it be changed by a statute? But it is all of the time Article 5 lays out the amendment process for making changes to the Constitution, but since the court allows Congress to legislate around inconvenient conflicts. Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 requires a 2’3rds vote of the senate for treaties; there is no provision for the President to negotiate an international agreement other than a treaty in the Constitution, yet Congress passes a law saying 2/3rds of the Senate is required to disapprove it. Then because the Senate fails to vote it is executed anyway. In this case it created a pathway for a nation that has filed a declaration of war against the United States can develop nuclear weapons. The Power to regulate international trade is granted to Congress, the President can negotiate treaties only. Congress has passed a law prohibiting debate passage on a simple majority yet the agreement remains in perpetuity. In this case even though the American people are bound by it immediately we can’t see it for 5 years.

It was this kind of callous disregard for the limitations the Constitution placed on government that got me looking at things. I expected to find the abuse of power was a recent occurrence with the exception of the 14^th Amendment. Imagine my surprise when I discover these games of trickanery began almost before the ink got dry. We have missing documents, duly ratified amendments that magically disappear without repeal There is direct conflict between the ratification record of the States and the government. What I have learned is that the culture that government feeds itself first and government does what it wants is as old as the country The tales of virtue and morality involving our elected officials are fabrications; they were either crooked or incompetent.

I started with the Google search Bill of Rights it returned 8,620,000 listings. I learned a long time ago that for doing real research you need to dig deep into the stack So I “next” my way back 100 pages and open a search file. Guess what? Article 1 of the Texas State Constitution is also called the Bill Of Rights, so I close it. The search string has shuffled bringing all things Texas forward and the search now contains 192,000,000 possible files. The intuitive help features of the web browsers suck. It’s like it was intentionally designed to thwart efforts like mine. Everytime I open a file that is not what I want and close it the search engine has shuffled the list bringing more of what I don’t want to the top. I open a page maintained by Cornell University for the legal information institute and there’s this note “Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.” The rest of the page is hocking attorney’s services. “Confer rights” The constitution is a limiting document, that’s what I’ve been taught. The founders conferred limited powers to the federal government. I close the file open another. Finally a tidbit, it’s an image file of a typed letter attributed to some collection It wasn’t very long but some of the New England States ratifiers are a little miffed. It seems that when this gentleman ratified the Constitution that he did so with the understanding assurances from Congress that the Bill of Rights was just about ready, and if he had known it was going to take this long he wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution. They knew he conditioned his signature against that promise and he felt he had been intentionally misled.

Now I knew there was something to find. Out of the next 48 hours I must have spent 40 of them opening a search link reading what was there backing out and swearing because based on the possible files number it shuffled the search every single time. There was definitely angst growing between Congress and the ratafiers. The ratifiers were not members of their state legislatures, instead they were prominent citizens. The theory being the Constitution was drawing its authority from the people. I suspect in reality the ratifiers were being played and the members of Congress thought they could get away with more working with people completely unfamiliar with the game. Rodger Sherman was there so they weren’t completely outclassed. Congress got the Constitution ratified which was their objective. They did it by painting a picture that would lead one to believe the work on the Bill of Rights was almost done. The truth is they hadn’t even started.

I found 2 documents that if verifiable will upset the apple cart in a major way. Both are purported to be transcripts of an original documents claiming they come from the personal papers of Rodger Sherman. The first one claims it is a copy of the demand letter to Congress informing them that the Bill of Rights was unacceptable as to form. That important language had been left that clarified and strengthened that the People are the sovereign and the government for the Country United States was the servant. They were furious that the Bill of Rights appeared to be drafted as a standalone document and that was unacceptable. The Country United States that they were interested in creating was not accurately reflected by either document. It could only be seen when the two documents were read as one and they demanded that they be joined. If this could not be accomplished they were prepared to revoke ratification of the Constitution perfectly content to move forward into the future as independent states as that would be preferable over what had been presented They wanted it made clear that not only were the 2 documents to be read as one, all parts were equal; no part was stronger than the other. They also wanted a penalty clause. That clause stated that if the documents were ever read and interpreted in any other way than they were instructing it automatically trigger the withdrawl of original consent by revoking ratification of the constitution and the country United States would be dissolved. They would immediately revert to an independent state operating under the authority of their respective state constitutions. The country United States would be stripped of its federal authority, but the country United States would retain the debt would retain the debt. The independent States could accept debt at the states sole discretion. They stated their demands were non-negotiable.  The document came with an image file icon that was viewable when you rolled the curser across it opened the image for viewing. When you did this the image of a very old letter displayed with what appeared to be 10 signatures with affirmations identifying the state with which the signatory was a duly authorized agent of his respective state. Must admit the significance of what I had read did not register immediately, having been in “reading mode” for the lack of a better way to describe it I had been opening files reading them closing them and opening the next one for at least 8 hours so it was like being on auto pilot. I had actually closed the file and opened another one when the significance of what I read registered. In my zeal to reopen the previous file I closed the browser. I don’t blame people if they do not believe it. I wouldn’t either.

There are several you tube video’s out there of Justice Kennedy reading the decision in the Obergfeldt decision. When Justice Kennedy states the 14^th amendment was controlling, one of the Justices, I believe it was Justice Rehnquist can be heard saying “you just dissolved the country”. I don’t know if it’s more than coincidence that the same choice of words. I find it an awfully coincidental. I believe in coincidence I just don’t trust them.

The other document I found some 26 hours later. It also purported to be the transcript of a personal paper attributed to Rodger Sherman. It appeared to be, from the narrative form a diary entry. It expressed anger and disappointment in the fact that Congress had failed to have the Bill of Rights redrafted; opting instead to have the preamble and penalty clause drafted on a separate page. It alleges that the Preamble of the Bill of Rights Resolved statement ended after “further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added.” The document claims that the ratifiers added the final sentence reading  “And as exceeding the bounds of public confidence in the government, will best  insure the beneficial end of its institution” This sentence was to reinforce the requirement s for the reading and interpretation the document. The document emphasized that the preamble is the most important part of the Bill of Rights as it reinforces that the rights are individual natural rights inherent to everyman. That evidence being necessary to reinforce that the people are the sovereign, and limiting the new government of the country United States to the powers specifically granted

All of the copies of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights I have found are with type face printing, and are not scribed calligraphy on velum as the Bill of Rights is.

Since no mention is made of a stylization in the documents, and I think there would be; I am at a loss. If the documents are a true and accurate telling of events I am flabbergasted as the ramifications of revoking Original ratification is chilling. The writings of James Madison, George Mason’ Patrick Henry all reflect a high degree of frustration with the 1^st Congress and the fact that having received ratification of the Constitution prior to crafting the Bill of rights everything else seemed more important. The tone of the documents are in agreement. There are several differences in the verbiage of the Resolved statement of the preamble as well. Some show a very similar last sentence in the statement, others reflect the resolved statement as described and are missing the last statement. Some say in amending and with amendments pursuant to Article 5, one says continuing with amendments pursuant to Article 5

I am very conflicted by the discovery and the ramifications should they be verifiable, because the implications are profound. It also presents the members of the 1^st Congress in the traditional role of a politician instead of as a more virtuous noble character. It is not unusual when doing this type of research that you will stumble across other things unlooked for. This case is no exception, I discovered several exceptionally well researched sites claiming disturbing things relating to the 13^th amendment. There is overwhelming evidence that in 1819 the 13^th amendment as ratified as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. The evidence is  compelling as it is reflected in the historic records of Colorado and Wyoming, Maine, The British Museum (particularly disturbing)and many other sources that in or around 1876 it was thrown away and replaced with what is represented as the 13^th amendment. Some evidence shows the currently accepted 13^th amendment as the TONA and the current 13^th amendment as the 14^th amendment. One shows the previously stated order with the 15^th amendment in agreement. There are many questions as to the legitimacy of the ratifications of the 16^th and 17^th amendment. The records of the states are in conflict

What is readily apparent is the respect and deference paid to the documents is not reflective of their actual treatment . The claim of Rule of Law is only that, there is no respect or belief that the people and government stand as equals before the law and they never have.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti12.html#167-1

This link will take you to a site that raises issues with the 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, and 17^th amendments. What becomes clear is Congress does not believe the amendment process is important. If an inconvenient conflict arises the Constitution stops being the supreme law of the land

The language of TONA which the call the original 13^th amendment bars Hillary Clinton from ever holding office and her time as Secretary of State was in violation of the law

As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendmentwas proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and graft of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of"Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

As noted in the discussion ⁶⁹ in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted,

Today he usurped the Constitution of the United States by representing a treaty to the United Nations this country has not authorized. In so doing he has set in motion the release of 150 billion dollars to the acknowledged leaders of international terrorism in the world. He has paved the way for the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism to develop nuclear capabilities. The ultimate leader of that country gave a speech on Saturday in which he vowed "Death to America"

On Friday knowing that 5 US service men, 4 marines and a sailor, had been gunned down in a Jihadist attack on the streets of Chattanooga Tennessee He was tweeting out celebrator messages to the Islamic world. His comment about the deaths of our men in uniform "disheartening circumstance" and the he returned to his celebration marking the end of Ramadan.

Today after subordinating this country top actions of the United Nations, before a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars he professes concern for those wearing the uniform. The only thing worse than the Treasonous acts of this man today is the complete absence of action on the part of Congress. Instead of preparing Articles of Impeachment and removing this man from office so that he can be tried for his criminal actions our federal elected officials do nothing. The act of doing nothing makes the betrayal complete; for silence grants consent..

I remind the Honorable members of the House and Senate that we are engaged in a war on terrorism. That is the justification they used when eviscerating the 4th amendment and authorizing domestic surveillance on every citizen of this country. Through the United Nations he has obligated us to a treaty that has not been ratified. The result of that action assures billions of dollars flow to terrorist cells around the world and nuclear capabilities are guaranteed to a nation that not only supports and funds terrorism, it is also dedicated to destroying our country.

The Supreme Court has stated for an act of treason to occur there must be an overt act. I submit not waiting on Senate ratification constitutes an intentional deliberate overt action. I also submit that his deliberate actions were committed in the knowledge that nuclear technology and billions of dollars would be provided to the worlds largest supporter of terrorism. Such technology and windfall liquidity constitute aide and comfort. I point out again that the United States is engaged in a war on terrorism.

I now draw your attention to Article 2 Section 4 wherein the United States Constitution enumerates cause for removal of office. The constitution Identifies Treason specifically. The Supreme Court has provided a definition of Treason as applied to the Constitution. It must be a deliberate overt action that provides aide and comfort to our enemy is Treason as identified in the Constitution. I accuse the president of treason In the 30 days preceding today The traitor has actively engaged in activities designed to abridge the American people of their right to speech, there right to belief, their right to travel unmolested, their right of self defense, their right top face accusers and defend ones self in open court.

I further submit these actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate intent to unconstitutionally deny and/or refuse to recognize my guaranteed inalienable rights thud denying me the liberty due a free people. I further state that he has deliberately jeopardized the safety of this country. He has knowingly engaged in activities to weaken and compromise the general welfare of the people, and he has attempted to nullify the constitution I assert these violations constitute high crimes against the nation.

As a citizen I call on Congress to remove him from the office of the President. I further request that John Kerry be removed from his post as Secretary of State; that Jeh Johnson be removed from his post as director of homeland security ; that Loretta Lynch be removed from the position of Attorney General. I implore Congress to remove their current leadership and replace them with men of character and fortitude

The nation deserves no less

Hey my very first Blog post. Another life milestone reached. Well I just received one of those how to survive Obamacare notices and I usually react like water of a ducks back, but then i saw this.

'For example, the IRS just came out with a new huge penalty for small businesses.

If you own a small business and reimburse employees for the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies or pay their health costs directly, you will be fined up to $36,500 a year per employee under the new IRS rule that takes effect July 1, 2015."

My interpretation being "if you had insurance through a small business you don't have it anymore."

Since justice Roberts saw it necessary to continue inflicting this assault on the American public it only seems right that the 22,000,000 federal employees share in the joy.

The republicans are putting together a budget so why not move everybody into his exchange? If we the general public must be treated this way then those folks on our payroll should enjoy the same advantages. The new federal medical plan should be a bronze level 60/40 plan with a $10,000 annual deductible and $100 co-pays and it should only cover the mandatory coverages.

If we don't want to live with this forever we need to share the love. There are an awful lot of federal employees inside the beltway. Maybe this is the right way to get the proper level of attention paid to this injustice.

Right now all of those folks have the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow medical plan and an exemption. We should demand they revoke both. I say again, if it's good enough for us it is good enough for them. I don't know about you, but me; I'm tired of being treated like a serf