(23) ACORN led by you Obama laid the foundation for the sub prime mortgage collapse. You sued City Bank and forced them (The rest of the banks) to lower their standards and through President Bill Clinton, Freddie Mae and Freddie Mack forced banks to lend money to un qualified people mainly minorities and the poor who could never pay back the loans. Thus the housing bubble was created and the collapse of our economy 2008.
(24) Bill Ayers directed you Obama to write a book to secure your political position. Obama did not write his book Dreams from my Father, Bill Ayers did. The book was full of lies and falsehoods and a hundred thirty pages were concentrated on Obama's trip to Africa to build credibility with his fake black heritage.
(25) Your friend David Axelrod whose mother was a member of the Communist Party USA helped you run for the US Senate. You were advised to have nose surgery (Rino-plasty) to hide your close facial resemblance to your father Frank Marshal Davis. In 2008 you had this surgery before you ran for the US Senate.
(26) You become closely aligned with Marxists and Muslims who both support the over throw of capitalism. After 5 months as a Senator you decided to run for President. David Axelrod said you must hide your Marxist ideology and he set up another trip to Africa for you to create an alignment once again with your fake African family. You met up with Odinga Odinga and his Marxist Kenyan Peoples Union who are aligned with Islam and also the Communist Party of Kenya.
(27) You returned back to the states and then set up your "Hope and Change" campaign for a Presidential run. Hope was derived from Jeremiah Wrights audacity of Hope Sermon and Change was from Saul Alinsky's Code word for Socialist Revolution. "Yes we can" originated from Communist activist Caesar Chavez SI, SE PUEDE! / YES, WE CAN! Your Hope and Change emblem was designed from the old Weather Underground domestic terrorist group emblem.
(28) You refuse to release all your college transcripts because you a "C" average student that just got by in school. You are not able to give a speech without a teleprompter. You are lost without it. You will stammer and stumble. You cannot let the world know you are actually dumber than a bag of marbles.
(29) Your wife Michelle used Communist propaganda by telling people in the black - Hispanic communities that success is always quite out of reach for them and that the capitalists keep moving the bar making it impossible for them to get ahead. Michelle Obama made the black community think America was "Hell" and only the government can help them. All Marxist indoctrination.
(30) Obama you then stated you needed a civilian security force more powerful than our military to secure America. You slipped up Comrade when you revealed your true Marxist intent for America with this statement. Stalin and Lenin would have been proud of you.
(31) Your friend Marxist Bill Ayers and your father "Communist" Frank Marshal Davis prepared you Obama to replace American capitalism with socialism and it all started by signing the stimulus bill in 2008. This was a way to funnel money to Marxist front groups and re distribute our wealth. This included the bail out of General Motors and Obama care are was rammed down our throats and implemented. You also centralized power and hired over 30 czars to bypass the Congress and the America people.
(32) You told Eric Holder to ignore laws and or go around laws you did not like. Like the Dream Act and Defense of Marriage Law. Pure Marxism and unconstitutional. You used the BP pipe line disaster to re distribute wealth and tried to nationalize oil companies using this crisis.
(33) You regard America as an imperial nation and that we owe the world an apology. So you went on your world apology tour. Marxism 101.
(34) Instead of asking where is the birth certificate we should be asking who is your real father. You also stated that the free market capitalism does not work. Using Marxist propaganda you polarized a nation with your speeches stating this is not fair and that is not fair. You programmed people in the minority voting blocks that we need to change America. You even created the group African Americans for Obama. You created an illusion that you were the son of an African goat herder when in fact you are the son of a former Communist leader and you have unleashed a dangerous Marxist agenda on the Middle Class trying to destroy them.
(35) You are purging the military senior leadership. Over 200 to date and replaced them with weak left leaning capitulators. Marxism 101. You sided with the Muslim brother hood in Egypt a terrorist organization and you inflicted massive casualties' on Libya by siding with pro Islamic forces that over threw Colonel Mumar Gaddafi. You fired your Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel because he had reached a point of no return and basically told you to go screw yourself after he finally figured you out and he manned up.
(35) Your goal is to tax and regulate the middle class out of business and collapse the economy and make this nation vanish, leaving behind a lower class and your political elites who will run the government and control the wealth. You will do this by controlling the school curriculum, the energy under cap and trade, the water under the EPA and America would become socialist and nobody would even realize it until its too late. Agenda 21 .... The United Nations are waiting to swoop in and finish the job.
I say to Barry Soetoro we will not allow you to destroy this nation. The November 4th election was just the beginning. We the American people demand that you step down and surrender your Marxist agenda and turn yourself over to the Congressional Master at Arms for prosecution for treason against the United States under Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution. The militia in this nation is stronger than your federal Communist storm troopers. Barry its time for you to step down and resign from the Presidency.
Senior Chief Geoff Ross
Surface Warfare - Air warfare - Airborne
United States Navy Retired
If the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1866, why would it need to be ratified again in 1868? It has been proven that the 14th Amendment was only ratified in 1868 by military force against the southern states. The southern states refused to ratify it so the Federal government imposed martial law in those states, removed their already existing lawful governments, and replaced them with military rulers, then the Feds re-submitted the 14th Amendment for ratification, and of course it passed, all done in violation of the constitutional process. Seward was one of the cronies of the Federal government and his declaration that it was ratified was completely unlawful. More proof that even back then the Federal government had been severely corrupted. President Andrew Johnson was impeached because he vetoed the 14th Amendment.
Representative John R. Rarick's documents proved the 14th Amendment to be Unconstitutional. We need to make sure he gets credit for his actions. Congressional Record -- House June13, 1967 H7161
If there was actually a supermajority vote to pass it as required, then a veto would have been of no effect.
But, the whole process was rotten as executed.
Here is a document by Judge Leander H. Perez of Louisiana also opposing the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
This document by "Peoples Awareness Coalition" explains some of the dangerous ramifications of the 14th Amendment, which also explains why the Federal government was so hell-bent on getting it ratified. People need to realize just how damning this amendment has been to the American people. It changed your status from a sovereign to a subject, stripping you of your Constitutional rights. Here are some supreme Court decisions.
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: "... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
(Read that again. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT.)
The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
"The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, [The 14th Amendment] the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution." 4
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794 (1866): "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520 (1939): "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]
That's right! The US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights!
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
[Are you a creation of Congress, or a creation of God?]
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government…”
Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"
That's correct! If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right guaranteed by Article 4, Section 2). You are not protected by your U.S. Constitution. You have no rights. Like Esau, you [unknowingly] sold your birthright.
Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943:
"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government."
1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:
"... Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:
"... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure."
The "Missing" 13th Amendment
Even though the Constitution for the United States of America already had provisions against granting titles of nobility -
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. - Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 9:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. - Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section. 10.
These two sections are echoing a similar provision contained in the Articles of Confederation.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.- Articles of Confederation: Article VI.
Why would our Founding Fathers be so intent on restricting the use of Titles of Nobility?
Quite simple -- Our Declaration of Independence declares all men to be equal.
The granting of Titles of Nobility creates a superior class of Citizens.
Generally, if someone has a Title of Nobility they join cliques and private groups that shun those they consider to be of lesser quality than themselves.
Our Founding Fathers knew that many people were very unhappy about being cut off from the pomp and pageantry of England. It was these people, many of whom already held titles and positions of authority under the Crown, that the ban was aimed at.
If we allow people to claim honors, titles, and privileges it will not be very long before the equality of all men is destroyed and we start on the path to having those who have the money, the power, and the position, in short those who consider themselves to be the elite, make slaves and servants out of the rest of us.
Why, if we already had provisions against the Titles of Nobility would our Congress decide that we needed an Amendment to our Constitution?
Congress proposed a Title of Nobility Amendment in 1789 which did not pass. Congress tried again in 1810. This time it passed through Congress and was submitted 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. - True 13th Amendment
A considerable controversy has arisen concerning whether or not the Amendment was ratified.
Newly located documents verify the ratification was properly done.
For a detailed chronology of the events surrounding the fraudulent removal of the true 13th Amendment click here.
In order to remove the valid Amendment the people have to have the opportunity to remove it, and they must be in a position of power so they can manipulate the records and deceive the public. They must also have something to gain, or they must be afraid the Amendment will take something away from them.
Is there a group that fits the requirements?
Who would have the opportunity to remove the Amendment?
Only the politicians and those in government service - our public servants.
This group is also in a position of power to where they control what goes into the records and what does not get recorded.
Do they have something to gain?
These are the people who have served as Ambassadors to European Nations and have ties and friendships. These are the people who hold Titles of Nobility and positions of influence with the Kings and Queens of Europe.
Many of these people fought hard for the American Independence not for the Liberty and Freedom, but because they saw a chance to increase their power and influence among their foriegn friends. These people were not bothered by the tea tax, or the other taxes that were imposed - they had large plantations and farms and raised most of what they needed and used.
It was the less affluent people who had to rely on imports of goods in order to live that were bothered by the taxes. But these people had no power, opportunity, or even ability to create a new Republic. It took the educated and the wealthy to put it all together so it would work.
This is not to say that all of the Founding Fathers were not honest in their efforts and their remarks. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole bushel.
The Constitution does not mention attorney, or lawyer, because it presumed that only residency and age would be the requirements to hold any of the offices created under the Constitution.
In fact, there is a little mentioned clause that precludes attorneys and lawyers from serving in many government offices.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office - Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2.
Attorneys and lawyers are officers of the court. As such they take an Oath of Office concerning their activities and allegiance to the court. If they are appointed, or elected to any other office under the United States then they have to take an Oath of Office for that position. Can a man serve two masters?
Holding positions in two different Branches of the Government is a violation of the Separation of Powers established in the Constitution.
For an attorney, or lawyer, to be a part of the Legislature is a direct conflict of interest because they are then in a position to create the laws in such a way as to benefit themselves and their associates.
A few years ago there was a big battle going on in the Utah Legislature. It seems that a school teacher who had been elected to the House of Representatives wanted to serve on the education committee. The lawyers stopped her because she would then be in a position to create laws more favorable to the teachers. Nothing was ever said about lawyers who are serving in the Legislature being able to create laws to benefit their profession.
On February 5, 1790, the third day of the U. S. Supreme Court conducting business, "the first three practitioners before the bar were admitted as counselors...and Rules of Court were adopted as to the form of writs and as to the admission of counselors and attorneys." At that time, without any Constitutional authority whatsoever, five United States Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justice John Jay, all former Crown Lawyers, ordered...it shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys or counselors to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Court of the State to which they respectively belong...
The Constitution certainly doesn't make any such requirement. And, remember, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Violating the provisions of the Constitution is no different than breaking any other law.
Then, to compound the situation, on February 8th, 9th, and 10th, the only business transacted was the admission of sixteen further counselors and seven attorneys. Of the nineteen counselors admitted at this first Term..two were Senators and nine were Representatives. This is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers established in Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2, as stated above.
Whenever someone was appointed as a Crown Lawyer they were granted a Title of Nobility - Esquire - and swore strict allegiance to the King. Our Supreme Court was staffed by Crown Lawyers.
Is it any wonder that the form of the writs adopted were the ones being used in England?
Starting with the Jay Supreme Court the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution has been totally ignored. Over the years the bulk of the people in our Legislature are attorneys, in direct violation of the provisions We, the People established in our Constitution.
The very first Supreme Court established government by lawyers, and we are still suffering under that problem today.
As we have attempted to demonstrate, there are ongoing unlawful attempts to abrogate and modify our Constitution.
Our freedom is under attack. Not from an armed outside enemy, but from trusted officials whom we have elected, or appointed, to watch over our Life, Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness.
There is no more insidious deceit than to be betrayed by an attack from trusted individuals within the system.
These people have violated their Constitutional duties.
Worse still, because they claim the honor of immunity from prosecution.
They have firmly established their private club - the BAR - as the only ones who can practice law. The only ones who can serve as judges. The only ones who can be attorney generals. All in direct defiance of our Constitution.
Yes, the 13th Amendment was unlawfully removed by the attorneys and their associates. If the 13th Amendment were in place we would not have attorneys in the Legislature because most of them would have forfieted their Citizenship because they claimed honors and privileges.
For some reason it has always been the Lawyers and Attorneys who have destroyed the nations.
Jesus Christ condemned the Lawyers when He was at Jerusalem.
If the people will go to the web site for Constitutional Concepts Foundation they can see all of the publications and documentation that verifies the 13th Amendment was ratified. What follows is the a copy of the New Hampshire Legislative Record where the Governor sent the 13th Amendment to the New Hampshire Legislature for consideration. Please note that it says that Virginia had already ratified the Amendment. The attorneys claim that Virginia never ratified. I have a certified letter from the State of New Hampshire that verifies this document.
Jim Barrus, CEO, Constitutional Concepts Foundation
Yes Michael Reagan is exactly correct. The whole purpose for the civil war was to divide and conquer. The slavery issue was only propaganda to make it look like a humanitarian cause. The Jesuits, the Vatican, and the wealthy European Bankers all worked in concert in order to take over America. I urge everyone to read the book "Crimes of the Civil War", written by Henry Clay Dean and published in 1868. You can download it at www.GodandGov.net Also on that website you can download proof that the UNITED STATES, (2 of them), the Treasury, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve, are all corporations registered in the state of Delaware. These files are at the bottom of the "Government related files" section. These usurpers are without lawful authority and are operating under a de facto status. The supreme Court case of Downes v Bidwell clearly states that "two national governments exist. One is under the Constitution, with all of it's restrictions, (the Republic) the other operates outside and independently of that instrument". (the Federal corporation) The Republic still exists, but is dormant until the usurpers are removed from power. Actually there are (3) United States. Two of which are corporations, the third being the Republic. Hooven and Allison Co. v Evatt
The problem with the 14th Amendment is that it changed our government from a Republic, under the rule of law, (the Constitution) to a Corporate Socialist Democracy under Commercial law, the UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code). It also changed your status from a "state Citizen" to a "United States citizen", and instead of rights, you now have only privileges, which can be taken away. In an original copy of the Constitution, you will find that in the 11th Amendment, the word "Citizen" is capitalized, but in the 14th Amendment, the word "citizen" is spelled in all lower cased letters. That is not due to a mistake in spelling. Eliminating the 14th Amendment will not necessarily get rid of Obama and all the other liars, deceivers, and thieves in Washington, but it will change our form of Government back to a Republic and your status back to a sovereign. This link explains it very well. http://www.godandgov.net/uploads/4/0/4/0/40408203/14th_amendment_dy...
A good start, though.
Keywords in your reference:
"the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT was forced upon the nation."
This is enough to piss you off. More info on the 13th Amendment.
Judge Dale, Ret’d ~ The Missing 13th Amendment
Shift Frequency April 15 2013
On or about March 20, 2013, the New Hampshire Legislature passed HB 638, recognizing Article XIII, known by few as: “The Missing 13TH Amendment,” missing from the organic Constitution of the United States of America. The legislative analysis offered described a trite but secret history of this mystical amendment, which I have encapsulated as follows:
During the American Civil War, the country was under Marshal Law by President Lincoln and after the War, Lincoln’s policies were to be abated and everything was supposed to return to normal but it didn’t happen quite that way. Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which created a government corporation within the District of Columbia, called: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This new government corporation replaced the Municipal Charter for the District of Columbia, a move that egregiously led to the fraudulent rewrite and adoption of what appeared to be the organic American Constitution. This erroneous rewrite is described as a corporate “mission statement” with the original 13TH Amendment “omitted” and it was this Constitutional rewrite that was inadvertently published for all to see.
Members of royalty, PhD’s, lawyers, squires and bankers, “Titles of Nobility,” have left a historic wake of deceit, destruction and corruption behind them on this planet. I would like to believe it was the majority intent of the Founding Fathers and the first federal convention to shield America from those proven elements of destruction and corruption. In so doing they proposed and ratified several amendments, one being Article XIII or the 13th Amendment, specifically designed to bar candidates who held such “Titles of Nobility,” from ever holding a seat in government! Each year since 1871, Lincoln’s Martial Law has been renewed by Congress and currently, all state and federal governments are dominated by legislators with “Titles of Nobility.” What was once regarded as a service to country is now a political career.
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens at all, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
The described “omission” of Article XIII [the missing 13th Amendment] and the “mission statement” – the fraudulent copy of the organic constitution – initiates the following ten  questions, which I answer as succinctly as I can.
1: How do you “omit” a Constitutional Article when they are all sequentially numbered?
Obviously this is a lawyer’s response by the New Hampshire Legislature because you cannot simply “omit” a Constitutional Amendment. They are sequentially numbered.
The original Article XIII was intentionally and methodically removed from existence, which took a number of years to complete and was NOT simply “omitted.” It required a conspiracy; a federal rewrite; the removal of all former texts and references to the original Article XIII and the domination of all the various state government legislatures by candidates holding “Titles of Nobility,” who would be willing to save their careers at any cost. This was all intentional on their part to complete and sustain its demise.
Read it all here. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?454929-Missing-13th-ame...