What Me?! Sneaky Wabbits: Let’s Change Up The Original Intent of The 2nd Amendment When No One Is Looking: How They Parse Us: Plausible Deniability As Pure Power To Decieve: A Constitutional Convention By Punctuation and You Ain’t Invited

It matters. Really matters.

The 2nd Amendment, a crucial, and the most generally agreed upon Amendment and condition of ratification of The USC, by the individual but separate, (critically important), sovereign states, The Peoples, get that, The People, not the governments, Right To Arms became almost a uniformly universal ratifying condition set by these states before they would sign on the dotted line. Can it be any plainer than that. A truly relative condition and integral inherent foundational inclusive historical precedent component of our governing document, The US Constitution.

So it begs, it screams, the question, WTF!: just who the hell has been messing with the written structure of the 2nd Amendment??? Why are they altering its foundational meaning and intent? Not how they whoever “they” is, changed the 2nd Amendment, this is self evident, but why and for what purposes was this undertaken, is the salient question. But to get to that answer, it is necessary to find out and document first how it was accomplished, this fundamental alteration without even so much as a whisper of having a Constitutional Convention or 2/3’rds Majority of both houses of the Congress, or the individual States legislatures and their peoples consent and blessings.

Do you grasp the ramifications of the hubris and malice involved here, for something so simple as a colon?

It is FUBAR is what this is now.

Do you feel your gorge rising?

Have this feeling you need to have a bone in your teeth and a combat rifle in your hands?

A most suitable target for your sights.

And the insatiable need to discharge your rifle in vast exuberance at such targets?

Brother and sister you should.

I surely have these urges.

I’m pissed off.

Really.

This shit is unacceptable in no uncertain terms it is no negotiable.

Period.

End of discussion.

No Parley.

No Quarter.

Because We all got conned big time.

In this Republic, exactly because its inviolate framework is just, there are no corrupt aspects within that framework, the framework is inherently legitimate, only illegitimate corrupt actors on the inside and outside: there are no such things which exists as natural, spontaneous, unrelated, isolated, purely coincidental, unconnected, politically, socially, culturally convenient happenstance. The Republic which is not subject to usurpations, is indeed fully functioning within the framework of intent as founded are not subjected to such specious activity. An entity of a Republic can not become corrupt. Only people become corrupt and corrupt inanimate objects such as A Republic. That there are no natural happenstances inherent such as first listed in an uncorrupted Republic, this exactly applies for everything from the massacre at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas to 911, and everything in between, before and after, including the insidious magical alteration in secret of the wording of The 2nd Amendment.

Because the 2nd Amendment, not its existence so much, as a sentence in an Amendment, but, and its a BIG BEAUTIFUL BUT, what the 2nd implies is everything, because this natural right is all which has stood in the way of usurpation to unlimited raw naked power over our republic and ourselves, simply, because we have guns, and lots of them, and we never hesitate to remind prospective tyrants. This amendment lends political credence to our natural unalienable primal birth rights to such recourse if they waver in their sworn trusted duties as representatives, elected, and more so in some ways, unelected government actors.

Revisiting Gary Hunt’s and fellow researchers, decades long masterpiece carefully investigated as these things must be, with great circumcision, what clearly proves how they parse us into tyranny a tiny piece at a time by rearranging punctuation. That is no accident. Thus a subtle change is the grammatical composition of the singular intent of the framers of codifying our God granted natural rights, into become something else entirely. All this requires is an extra colon or where a colon is placed within the framework of a compound sentence. Cute.

Cant speak for anyone else, there is no way this is by mistake or by total ignorance, or even chance. They do not permit moron’s nor the ignorant modify and change willy nilly the intents and meanings within the most important document in existence which created the modern state, warts and all. Either changes are for good and proper reasons only within the frame work, or, they are malicious changes with intent totally outside the intent and framework. You only get to pick one.

The built in safeguards of The USC only permit the first. The second reason is self explanatory: Ulterior Motive

Copy and pasted, (without alteration), here is an excerpt from Mr. Gary Hunt’s Out Post of Freedom‘s:  The Real Second Amendment and Militia Related Information

Acknowledgement

The Library of Congress, the NARA (National Archives and Records Administration), University of Indiana, various sources within South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Archives of Delaware, Legislative Archives of Kentucky, Archives of Maryland, Archives of Pennsylvania, Archives of New Hampshire, Archives of New Jersey, Archives of Massachusetts, Archives of Connecticut, Archives of Vermont, Archives of Ohio, Archives of Virginia, Archives and Library of Georgia.  Also, various on line resources, especially Google Books, from which hundreds of historical publications can be found.

Special thanks to the members of the Team (names withheld) that has been a source of many hours of input, review, proofreading, and other assistance, in the preparation of this article, and many before it.

 

 

A basic historical and grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment

This is the full, erroneous, text of the Second Amendment

Complete Second Amendment text, as ratified.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It’s short and sweet–done so, ironically, to avoid confusion.  However, it could be argued that the confusion is only an emotional one.

The Second Amendment is a compound sentence with an independent clause preceded by two modifying dependent clauses.

The Supreme Court interprets “A well-regulated militia.” as implying the imposition of proper discipline and training.”  IMPOSED proper discipline and training.  People that argue the second amendment protects gun ownership usually ignore this fundamental point.

Paraphrased, the second amendment modifies the keeping of arms with regulation through compelled discipline and training.

The second clause, “being necessary to the security of a free state,” modifies the first and main parts.  Why do we need a well-regulated militia?  It is needed “To protect the security and freedom of the state.”

It is this simple.  Well regulated gun ownership the security of the free states is the only function for which well-regulated gun is guaranteed.

To paraphrase, the first two, modifying clauses establish that a well-regulated and trained militia that is necessary for the security and freedom of the states.

The final part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, is equally clear, but maybe not at first glance.  It establishes the right of “the people.”  This is tied to something called the “body politic.”  It’s a phrase you might have heard from some bloviated gas-bag posting in a highfalutin’ journal… ahem… and have a decent sense of what it means, yet never really checked.  I used to think it meant the body of politics.

It actually means, “the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as a group of citizens,” and “a group of persons politically organized.”  A body politic is also “a metaphor in which a nation is considered to be a corporate entity.”  (Under the old use of the word corporate, also known as a municipal corporation…)

The intent of ratification is that it is ratified, as is (without change).  It is to approve and sanction, not to modify.  If it is modified, it is no longer the same as it was when ratified.

The House of Representatives presented to the Senate seventeen proposed amendments.  Between both houses of Congress, they then reduced that to twelve and settled upon the final wording.  If ratification changes that wording, then they are not ratifying that which was presented.  This could result in an unending task of resolving, until the ratifications were in agreement, to determine what the final result would be.  However, Congress did the final resolving.  The states’ only duty was to ratify, or not.

We can surmise that the acceptance of a sufficient number of states ratification of the Second Amendment was based upon that which was proposed, as well as what the greater number of states agreed upon in their ratification returns.  This would mean that wording and punctuation of the Resolution of Congress of September 25, 1789, is the Second Amendment, as ratified in accordance with Article V of the Constitution.  To wit:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Note that there is only one comma in the Amendment.]

We can understand better the intent of the amendment by reviewing Fifth Article in the initial proposal of seventeen amendments:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It is clear that it was understood that the “militia” is “composed of the body of the people“.  That was so readily understood that what the militia was, the body of the people, and that it was not necessary to repeat it in the final proposed amendment.

In its final form, it follows a grammatical structure that is found in most resolutions of the day.  A resolution would generally begin with a “Whereas”, providing the foundation for a perceived necessity.  This is followed by a “Therefore”, this providing the solution or resolution of the necessity.

Applying this logic to the Second Amendment, we can easily understand:

Whereas, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state;
Therefore, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Before we consider the publications that have, over the last few centuries, published the Second amendment, we need to understand a bit about punctuation in the Eighteenth Century.

In researching punctuation of that era, I found an article, “When Did People Start Using Punctuation?”  (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/05/origins-punctuation-marks/).  It gives us an understanding of the change in use of commas and the fact that the practice of light punctuation that we use today was slowly adopted over a period of centuries.

The article explains that the use of a comma:

[B]egan to change after the publication of Ben Jonson’s English Grammar (1640) in which he illustrated how punctuation could help preserve an author’s original intention, rather than just giving a guide to how to read a text out-loud.  Well received, by the time of the Restoration (1660), using punctuation for syntactical purposes was finally common, and in fact, by the 18th century, excessive punctuation (such as placing a comma between every possible phrase) had become a major problem. . .  Overuse of punctuation continued to some extent through the late 19th century.

Now, that overuse went well into the late 1800s, and this is to be considered, as we continue.

During the course of researching the historical record, we have located 490 publications that include the Bill of Rights as proposed, the object being the “Article the Fourth”; or including the Bill of Rights, as ratified, being the “Second Amendment”.

The publications include: Federal authorized publications, State authorized publications, general works for public consumption; Published Newspapers; a state authorized broadside; and, publications for educational purposes.

Constitution RE People and Militia

People

Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In this instance, the “People” included only those who had a right to vote (being male freeholders – owning land or having an estate of a certain value).  Those voters then elected delegates to a Convention.  The Conventions then ratified the Constitution.  In this usage of “People”, it refers to a limited number, based solely upon their qualifications to vote within their respective state.

From the 1856 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 we can get a glimpse of the then perception of “People”.  From that decision, we find:

“The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this [these] people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”

Our Constitution created the first government in the history of the world that was put into place by a process that began in the community; sent delegates to state conventions; then, in convention, to determine to ratify, or not, that Constitution.

It is also the first time in the history of the world that a government was created, and within its founding document, the Constitution, had a provision for amendments, based on experience or necessity, could be ratified and become a part of the Constitution.

Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, would not ratify the Constitution until certain amendments were proposed for the protection of certain rights.  These proposed amendments were to assure that the rights of the people and of the States would be further protected against encroachment by the newly created federal government.  This was a serious concern to the people of that period, as they had thought that their charters and autonomy were protected until Britain decided that once given, the rights of the people and the authority granted by the colonial charters could be modified or extinguished.

The Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

We can look back to a letter from George Washington, written on September 17, 1787, and addressed to “His Excellency the PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS”.  That Congress, of course, was the Continental Congress, operating under the Articles of Confederation.  Attached to the letter was a copy of the Constitution, which had been signed by the delegates, unanimously.

Sir,

We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident—Hence results the necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.  The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.  It is at all times difficult to draw

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.  This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected ; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others ; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

With great respect, We have the honor to be, Sir, Your Excellency’s
most obedient and humble servants,
GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.
by unanimous Order of the Convention.

However, the Constitution would not create a new government, displacing the Continental Congress, until ratified, without changes, by nine of the 13 independent countries.  The duty fell on the Continental Congress to accept and forward or simply ignore and let die, the outcome of the Philadelphia Convention.

Read The Whole Thing Here

*

This issue of our time can not be over emphasized. Everything revolves around us mere dirt people having guns. Everything stems out from this. Our Colonial Era founding decendents understood this in no uncertain terms, hell, they just fought and won the greatest most successful revolution for freedom from tyranny in all of history. And here we stand today because of OUR guns in OUR hands. Because of our guns we have held back tyranny in all its totalitarian hideous form. WE are indeed on the threshold of the final stage of imposition of this totalitarian raw naked power so evident breathing down our throats. Yet, such a simple thing as our personal property, (that being the first thing) in the form of our guns, is The Bulwark, the only prohibition, against tyranny. We can split hairs and argue forever how “free” we are or how much Liberty we live under, but the crux of this great issue of mankind is we are indeed not defenseless unarmed slaves of tyrants and their systems of dictatorship and raw naked power.

We, us, We The People, more than enough of us, composing that incredibly mysterious profound, yet powerful beyond compare “plurality”, a tyrants wet dream of power they can never attain because illegitimacy of such usurpers, this Plurality of people which we who are armed constitute, because tyrant, because self defense, because protecting life porperty and family, because Liberty, because natural born rights, because primal reason of survival, because we want to, because we can, because we own that right, because it is non of your fucking business, BFYTW. And it is not the right, not the purview, not the place, not the business, not the power, not anything any persons institutions mechanisms “laws” manmade defacto or attainder of writ nor the congress or any branch of government nor the president himself, the whole lot it it and them, to say or do anything regarding our guns. Unless we request or provide our consent. And even then it is all subject to our power as the governed to change or stop any and all within that framework of Mind Your Own Business, illustriously known as MYOB!

MYOB!”

 

MYOB!

***

 

It is imperative to refer to both the introduction and conclusion of David E. Vandercoy”s superlative essay The History of The Second Amendment. The historical context of Vandercoy’s assumptive masterpiece is the most factual relative historical reference as to the reason why us dirt people need to be armed and why it is essential to our lives in every respect. And why it has always been about guns. Who has them who does not. Who controls guns and who is controlled by them. Who wants to take everyone elses guns and who refuses to comply. Everything today in our present circumstances has always been about guns, but now it is at the pivotal moment where if we do not keep our guns we are truly screwed. Do Not. Never. Ever. For Any Reason. Give Up Your Guns.

Here you go. I hope you read the whole thing. It is pretty darn good. You will discover things you never knew existed. Really cool things. Empowering concepts, ideas, precepts, and your legacy. It is all there jam packed into this awesome piece of critical history:

I. Introduction

Long overlooked or ignored, the Second Amendment has become the object of some study and much debate. One issue being discussed is whether the Second Amendment recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms,[2] or whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each state to maintain a military force.[3]

The debate has resulted in odd political alignments which in turn have caused the Second Amendment to be described recently as the most embarrassing provision of the Bill of Rights.[4]Embarrassment results from the politics associated with determining whether the language creates a state’s right or an individual right. Civil libertarians support the individual rights recognized in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and defend these rights against governmental abuse. Civil libertarians insist that each citizen be accorded the right to free speech, even if the citizen is a Nazi hatemonger. Similarly, criminals can count on a vigorous defense of the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches as well as the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. All of this is true even though most of us would (p.1008)agree that Nazi hate language is of no utility, and a criminal’s confession, absent coercion, and the fruits of a search of his or her house are among the best indicators of actual guilt or innocence. Yet, we zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals.

In the context of the Second Amendment, civil libertarian instincts are overcome by our fear of one another. As a consequence, we find civil libertarian organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), acting as participants in such groups as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.[5] Indeed, the ACLU, typically at the forefront of defending individual rights against an encroaching government, takes the position that the Second Amendment protects only the state’s right to an organized military–a well-regulated militia. It rejects any suggestion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

While this phenomenon is interesting, it is not the subject of this Article. My purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the Second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent. I will not suggest that original intent is controlling. On this point, I am reminded that George Washington once suggested, “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must (p.1009)depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.”[6]

The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.

To determine the original intent of the Second Amendment, this Article will examine the history of armed citizens in England, the Federalist and Antifederalist debates, the meaning of the word “militia,” the constitutional ratification process, and the various state constitutions in existence at the time.

VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government’s instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual’s right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people’s right to a free state, just as it says.

*

 

BFYTW

TINVOWOOT

(but you already knew this)

 

 

 

23 thoughts on “What Me?! Sneaky Wabbits: Let’s Change Up The Original Intent of The 2nd Amendment When No One Is Looking: How They Parse Us: Plausible Deniability As Pure Power To Decieve: A Constitutional Convention By Punctuation and You Ain’t Invited

  1. As written and ratified, basically, says:

    Whereas, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state;
    Therefore, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In other words as originally framed, A well organized and equipped, trained, and led militia consisting of civilians, is not belonging to the state, but the militia is what is by intent what protects the state, to preserve it at the peoples blessings of Liberty, and therefore this right of property, in the form of guns and their proper gear, and training of the people of the militia, this militias freedom to organize and associate, to act, can not be infringed upon for any reason by any entity tyrant diktat or law on God’s green Earth.
      It is, The Absolute Right.

      Did I get close Gary?
      Because this is my heart felt inviolate possession of my self determination and God given right to arms and their pureposes.

      In otherwords:
      These are our weapons.
      We use them such we see fit.
      Mind Your Own Business.

      Like

    • PSS,
      The fellow is long passed now. I wish I knew then what I know now. He posssed, I read it myself, an original copy of the USC. He claimed then the 2nd Amendment was altered. I didnt understand then how. But I trusted his claim as the guy was a straight up fellow.
      He attempted to inlighten a number of people and organizations, the Federal Archives, Smithsonian etc, the NRA in particular, for the ten years I knew him before he died, and longer by at least another decade before our acquaintance.

      To absolutely no avail. No one was interested. Fact is other than a few polite decline form letters, nobody ever engaged him directly or even looked at his original copy.
      It was a very old timey looking velum I think copy, or maybe parchment, it was’nt paper as we know paper today.
      It was really hard to understand because the grammer, spelling and composition was so alien to my 30 year old 7th grade public school educated mind.
      But I sat at the table in the machine shop of this gunsmith’s I worked at, where this fellow also worked running automatic ammunition loading machines. I read that USC a hundred times if once, it sure struck me like a bolt out of the blue from what I could discern with my limited education, there was something really fishy with the USC we have today in its “modern” english translation.
      The one thing came to mind and its been in my mind like a splinter since, was Henry’s Rat. I remember Patrick Henry’s epic remark, I smell a Rat popping into mu mind. It was one of my favorite history lessons the notable history around Patrick Henry. Its never left my mind. As time passes and events progress, Henry was far more right than he may have suspected.
      Love to read that fellows copy now.
      Oh yeah, almost forgot it was numbered dated, signed and had an official looking old timey stamp too.

      Like

      • This is a prohibition on the federal government. It does not define “arms”, but it does leave the government out of the equation, altogether.
        It does not affect the states, as what they might do could not be in conflict with the Second Amendment.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, your correct. That body of negatives. Of what the government has no business period being involved in.

          Thats how they con you.
          All of a sudden they magically are owners of a suddenly appearing man made law out of whole cloth that grants it special powers which proscribes something.
          Thats fancy words for making something up out of thin air for ulterior pureposes and calling it legitimate government.
          Like fiat money.
          Push the 0 & 1 key multiple times whenever you need. Presto! More Money.
          The cunning sleight of hand of the usurper.

          Like the gun control diktat of 1934.
          They jaw boned till the cows drowned in a sea of bullshit. Called it a discussion with special magic fairy dust. Took this sea of BS, called it reason. Took the reason, had a proxy vote. Bingo. Now you not only are proscribed from owning your property, and your use of it. Unless you satisfy a specific attainder of writ. Mind you those involved piling up this sea of BS are exempt. So is their newly usurped system of fiat they call OUR government, just to be nice like and all to us, then for the privilege of being all nice like to us, it will cost you $200 clams sucker. And a way we can come get you when its time to disarm you. Pictures of your mug, finger prints, the whole 9 yards.
          For the privilege of maybe allowing you, if we decide to be all nice and like to you, to have your own property.

          Pretty neat huh?

          What a racket.

          Has this uncanny resemblance to racketeering, like under the RICHO Statutes, used for organized crime syndicates.

          Oh, wait. Did I just imply OUR government is shaking us down, extorting protection money from us, stealing from us then selling what they stole, back to us at a cost you have no say in, thats after they created this “Law” out of whole cloth, you had no say in? And in 1934, $200 green backs would buy you a working farm. This was grubstack level money. 10 acres of fertile farm land feeds your family with enough left over to sell to earn a modest income to buy your kids shoes, and a learning book so they be educated. For a silencer you bought at your local feed store for $1.50 bucks, or Pop’s old sawed off shotgun too long for your boy to handle, so he could shoot some much valued dinner while you plowed your field with your mule.

          Naaaaw. Only organized crime syndicates do that. They called it Racketeering. They extort you. Black mail you.
          But gubermint! Its different. They did it for us to protect us. They are here to help us.

          Way I define it is it matters not if there is a 2nd Amendment. M rite to property and its use is absolute, it does not depend on words written on parchment, or a man made law, which are always vulnerable to being waylaid by usurpers and tyrants, re-interperated, altered, or rewritten, or eliminated in entirety, their memory erased from common knowledge, and revised history, from their original intent.

          Like

            • There’s a couple kind of protection money, one as you say, and the other is you pay me money to protect yourself from me from taking your corner variety store, or pizza shop lets say.

              Like

      • We only had 490 documents when I wrote the article. we have over 700 now, and they will be in Part 2.
        However, there are irons in the fire for even more, and I don’t kno9wm when the team will stop following up on additional sources.

        Liked by 1 person

        • This may be relevant, might be a value tying in or defining something for you, Gary North wrote a great outlier called Conspiracy in Philadelphia, seems to me there are many things which are pertinent to you guys work in North’s wonderful outlier work. How it could assist I’m not sure. But you all are on similar paths because you have taken the same fork in the road. http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf

          By the way, either your WP comment feature on your blog is wacked out, or you have trolls and other dirty stinking commies doing things to cause you problems with getting out your message. I say this last because it is obvious my blog is suffering from shadow banning and other forms of sneaky and cheesy methods of underhanded censorship through IT warfare.

          So you can decide if I’m not full of it.
          I was writing as a citizen journalist back in 2006-2008, and we used WP for our online news papers editing system. We where hacked multiple times. The FBi even became involved in opening a case and investigating because the seriousness of the hacking and subsequent computer crimes.
          Long story short, the hackers IP’s where located in the executive wing of a certain white house on Pennsylvania Ave in DC. One of the Agents disclosed to all involved in a conference call between myself, because my laptop was used to ghost into our online newspaper WP editing platform, Sen VP of Hughesnet North America Satellite Operations in Texas, two other citizen journalist besides myself, our editor and two FBI agents assigned to the case. I was subject to a number of fake doxxing and impersonation attacks based on individuals from the same IP addresses as the hackers, who used my comment avatar on various white supremecist and skinhead blogs and forums, ( they still do it. I caught them red handed on Bill Bupperts ZeroGov blog, right on the screen using my WP comment avatar, 6 weeks back), comment threads on other blogs where these agents posted under my name a slew of racial bigotry and other radical and violent comments and statements, then turned around and had law enforcement become involved in investigating me. Along with this, they had IT trolls working in Hughesnet North America corporate operations committing all manner of crimes and trouble for “marked undesirables” who they where trying to censor through a myriad of tricks and techniques.
          This began, at 2:15 in the afternoon on the day Obama was inaugurated into office.
          This was told to us by one of the FBI agents at this what ended up being our last conference call out of 3, because the FBI agents where ordered to drop the case entirely.
          I could describe to you a multitude of efforts used to censor me over the years, But I’m really not telling you anything here, you haven’t been through in other ways from dieseling to attainders of writ across state lines by psychopathic kangaroo court federal judges to shut you up.

          Right now I am logged into WP, tried three times to post a comment on your post page of your blog, and the script is all squirrelly. A typical sign on WP something is jinking the blog platform your using.

          Point is, this bullshit by “our” government is nothing new. And I put nothing past the SOB’s to do anything no matter how treasonous, egregious, and outrageous, the lengths taken, the crimes committed, in the name of keeping their grips on the levers of power. And all who read this should understand this clearly.
          I am a regular every day American, like you Gary, who has a care and believes in speaking out and holding these scalawags accountable thru lawful peaceful redress as it is also one of our unalienable rights to free speech and petitioning our government, our’s, regardless what usurpers think. In fact in spite of the bastards and their betrayals of us all.

          The 1st protects the 2nd as the 2nd protects the 1st.
          They are inextricably intertwined.
          It is the beauty of the natural rights we are blessed with. And our source of greatest power, called legitimacy of existence, and our consent, only the great sovereign creator can grant upon people and government.

          Like

  2. I generally write in Word then copy and paste ]t, when I comment.
    I don’t care so much about comments, though I trust that the link to your page works.
    I can see the reads, and that is what concerns me. I still have to put together Part 2.
    The amendment that I am wiorkin=g on now is the 14th. We found something interesting that I have yet to see discussed.
    Then we return to an article I wrote in 1995 on the Missign Thirteenth. In that article, we speculated that it had been ratified, and by which state. now, Now, we have found proof of ratification. We have also gone into the past to see what Titles of Nobility and Honor (Honor4 no0t n the Constitution, but in the 13th) meant at the time.
    Then to the 16th and 17th. And, if I live long enough, the 27th.
    Note the Series Title,. and the top of the page.
    “Correcting the Constitution Record – First in a Series”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ah yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious to me. I been like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

      A labor of love no doubt.

      I scanned thru the whole thing, I must sit down and give your work total undivided attention. Its pretty awesome.

      Like

      • I know it takes time. Even some of my team has not read the whole thing.
        However, it is worth it to those who r4ally want to know, with facts to support the information.
        it has been thousands of hours of research, writing, etc, for that article.
        And Part 2 is estimated at 150-200 hours.

        Liked by 1 person

        • No doubt Gary. The first part I read entirely no question you guys went to extraordinary length to document and collate everything. And even then, its so much you had to do some triage, looks like to me. Not much, more to make it less complex reading. Even though the whole thing is incredibly complex, because of all the connections, or cause and effects you have to take into account.

          Are you finding the more you discover there’s almost a logrithmic effect on how much more info and history you discover?

          Like wheels within wheels within wheels?

          What was Bush II’s national Security Advisor’s axiom, can’t remember the guys name at the moment, but he said “There’s the unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, and then you get down to the unknown unknown unknowns”.

          I felt like that the day it dawned on me what the town of Fabian in NH. was about next door to Brettonwoods, where I grew up as a kid. And the really old British King George Loyalist/Boston Brahman families and money, the huge land grants and late Colonial era family legacy compounds with 1200 acres secluding them up around the Sandwich range and into Bear notch, over to Crawford notch. Where the 1st vote of a presidential election is cast.
          The wheels within wheels, and the so called Long March the Fabian’s, (old english spelling), made their ideology into their agenda to destroy America which denied them their rightful rule over the new world denied them by the colonial terrorists.

          Its mind bending how evil, and the lengths human will go to destroy something they do not like, or believe they have special, or devine privilege to rule over.
          Generations follow thru.
          Are you finding correlation such as that?

          Like

  3. The list of Amendments that I gave all have anomalies that warrant scrutiny. One was ratified and then disappeared. The others were not ratified in accordance with the Fifth Amendment.
    If we run across others, we will, no doubt, add them to the list.
    However, both the damages caused and the intent to change the process of amendments will become apparent, as the series progresses.

    Liked by 1 person

      • That would be speculative.
        The conclusion would have to be yours. I simply provide the facts.
        However, this is not singular, in terms of the government’s manuip[uklation of the Amendment process, as will be demonstrated in subsequent articles in the series.

        Liked by 1 person

          • I will be moving in just over a month. I’m going to try and get the 14th Amendment article, out before I move.
            I appreciate you getting the word out. People need to know what the government has done to control what the Constitution says.

            Liked by 1 person

            • You got that right! They really really do.
              I figure it all begins with each of us. You certainly embody this spirit and audacity. It is where big things come from.

              I practice that, no let me rephrase that, I live by that, because if for only one good reason, and brother there a lot of honorable reasons, I’ll be damned if I’m going to let some other guy face dire consequences of an out of control tyrannical government and its actors, or even die, for my freedoms and Liberty, because I failed to stand up too. Failing that is in certain ways how we are all in this gordian knot together.

              It seems a simple equation. I always refer in my mind to the stoic, Seneca, how he said ideas and precepts, and in this media age, that includes the message of the truth I believe, how those things are like seeds, and planted in the right kind of fertile mind, they grow out of all size to their diminutive beginnings.
              If you or I can and others just change one mind, or enlighten one to truths hidden, we have effected positive change, they go on and with the right mind change another, it is all you can do. Until we have to resort to other redress. It is an unconditional thing, kind of like true friendship or love is in a way.

              At least that is how I see it Gary.
              So yeah, your most welcome man.

              Good luck on your move too.

              Like

    • Indeed. Truly excellent. There is a great growing plurality of similar mind out there. I most affectionately call it The Honorable Resistance, and The Legion, depends on the contextual references.
      Its out there. It is evolving. It is open source which is an excellent feature.

      Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s