Original 13th Amendment Shown In Triplicate


For those who have had doubts about the enactment of the original 13th amendment to the constitution, these two fellas have done their due diligence to prove in the several states that it was in existence more that 30 years after it was indeed ratified to the constitution.

This “missing” and “replaced” amendment stated:

“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.”

Learn more here: http://www.amendment-13.org/

And see the journal of the Senate which ratified this amendment, here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=004/llsj004.db&recNum=490&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj004446%29%29%230040392&linkText=1

Please watch the video below, and start asking your honourableknighted” public officials what happened to this amendment during the “reconstruction” era of the United States of America?

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, February 22, 2013

Leave a comment

16 Comments

  1. Andrew

     /  February 22, 2013

    Wow, I knew we get back to this amendment someday. Last time it occurred to me was last summer, the season I found this blog; this calls for a review of the first blog entry I liked to see. Yeah, the straw man series.

    Good times.

    Fun question, is captain a title of nobility? Maybe sounds like no to me.

    Reply
    • Dukes

      Dukes in Britain
      List of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles
      List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles

      Marquesses

      List of Marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles
      List of Marquessates in the peerages of the British Isles

      Earls

      List of Earls in the peerages of the British Isles
      List of Earldoms in the peerages of the British Isles

      Viscounts

      List of Viscounts in the peerages of the British Isles
      List of Viscountcies in the peerages of the British Isles

      Barons / Lords of Parliament of Scotland

      List of Barons in the peerages of the British Isles
      List of hereditary baronies

      Non-peerage styles and titles
      Baronets (styled as Sir)

      List of baronetcies

      Knights (styled as Sir)

      Knight, from Old English cniht (“boy” or “servant”),[6] a cognate of the German word Knecht (“laborer” or “servant”).[7]
      British honours system

      Scottish Feudal Barons & Lairds

      Scottish baron
      Clan chief
      Laird

      Other

      Esquire (ultimately from Latin scutarius, in the sense of shield bearer, via Old French esquier)
      Gentleman

      Notice that “Esquire” and “Knight” are listed as titles – attorneys are esquire and polititians take on honorary knighthood (i.e. Order of the Bath, Supreme Commander, etc)

      Reply
    • As if anyone would doubt it, at least one ‘high-level’ political ‘figure’ in the U.S. government has received a title of some sort from the Queen of England.Guess who? Former ‘president’ Bush! See: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-01/news/mn-62855_1_queen-elizabeth-s-court

      Reply
  2. It was replaced by a law that guarantees our right to enter voluntary servitude, a far cry from the original amendment.

    Reply
  3. Chippos

     /  February 22, 2013

    And yet the country no longer honors the rule of law and opts for corpo-rat regulation! Give credit to Red Beckman for reopening this can of wormsin the early 90’s.

    Reply
  4. virgil remus

     /  February 22, 2013

    I am not sure, but I think they are conforming to the thirtenth amendment just fine, because we are fourtenth amendment citizens with no rights. Our elected officials are not citizens, but officers of a foriegn country. At least this is the way I understand it.
    virg.

    Reply
  5. marika

     /  February 22, 2013

    I can’t help myself but comment that EVERY 13th “amendment” is in actuality an ARTICLE. There is a BIG difference between the two terms.
    The word “amendment” is an addition to something. Article stands alone. That’s why I stand firm on calling the Bill of Rights Article the 1st, the 2nd etc.

    That sets the Bill of Rights apart from Constitutional articles/amendments and shows that the Bill of Rights is superior AND separate to the CONstitution since it RESTRICTS the government. CONstitution is mere plan of govrenment (however flawed) while the Bill of the Rights is the supreme law of the land.

    Reply
    • I couldn’t disagree more, unfortunately. I am currently working on a constitution “exposed” blog entry that will really explain my stance here, so I wont be long-winded here. But I will say that nothing in the constitution involves “land” or “law”, but only involves artificial “Persons” and “Property” as “Territory”.

      The concept of “Law of the Land” is a fallacy, as the land stands alone and is covered by the veil of artificial corporatism which is the United States.

      You will be surprised by what I will present, and hopefully will understand that the last thing you should do is to declare your rights from the constitution or from government – which is anti-God and anti-natural law. I certainly wont!

      Stay tuned, and in the mean time check out my article entitled “Tyranny Requires Equality”…

      -Clint-

      Reply
  6. Bruce

     /  February 22, 2013

    Hi Clint, missed “World Without Gray” yesterday and went to WeRoar.ws only to discover that, on your archive page, the audio isn’t up yet and it sez: “The archive list is updated upon host sending in their show recordings.” There’s only one program up, from January, I probably heard it. Rock on.

    Reply
    • Hey Bruce, thanks for listening!!!

      I will no longer be broadcasting due to so many technical problems with the host and the program used. I will post what was recorded with Hal Anthony soon, though it was not recording for more than an hour of the show (one of many reasons I wont be a host anymore!).

      Look for episode 4 soon…

      -Clint-

      Reply
      • Steven

         /  February 25, 2013

        HI Clint,

        That’s a shame. I found the show very informative.

        Anyway, as ever, I look forward to your future work, in whatever form it is.

        Steven

        Reply
        • Thanks Steven, I’m sure I’ll do it again some time, and may do interviews sporadically when important enough. I don’t need a “station” to do it. I don’t need a publisher to write, nor a record company to make music, nor a PHD to research and expose…

          -Clint-

          Reply
  7. mesafarm

     /  April 18, 2013

    the book you claim as ohio said iowa and the last book said maryland on it so i am suposed to belive what you tell me the small print says

    Reply
  8. it was once said that the original 13th Amendment was to also stop lawyers from running as government representatives. And this is why they invited/allowed the Canadians to come up for a weekend party and burn the White house down with the original constitution in it so they could change it.

    Reply
  1. Militant Libertarian » Original 13th Amendment Shown In Triplicate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: