Was the 14th Amendment and the 'Reconstruction" period the beginning of the end of true freedom in America? Was every man now equal, in the sense that they are all reduced to debt slaves?
Decoding the Reconstruction Acts - 14th Amendment
November 23, 2013
Over the past few decades it has become more and more apparent that something just isn't right. With the 50th Anniversary of the JFK assassination now behind us, most researchers point to JFK's death as a marker of the decline of the United States into a police state, with economic ruin, tyrannical policies, and an explosion of inter-agency corruption. But, is this really where the took over of the 'New World Order' began, or is there another point in history that tells a much larger story that can explain why we are where we are today?
The answer in short is yes, and I'm going to prove it.
One time in history that seems to point to a conspiracy that correlates to the JFK assassination is of course; the Lincoln assassination. In fact, there are some eerie similarities that can only be logically explained by pure coincidence. For example here are a few creep coincidences that will blown your mind:
- Lincoln was shot and killed in Ford's Theatre. - Kennedy was shot and killed in a Lincoln, made by Ford.
- Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
- Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
- Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
The real issue here is so profoundly buried in history, (mostly through law) that finding out about it can only be done by being "privy" to such knowledge, or by stumbling across it by relentless research after many years.
The Civil War
Prior to the Civil War, we had not a "country' as we see it today, but a Union comprised of sovereign individual nation states. Each individual nation state acted as it's own entity, completely separate from the Federal Government. In 1861, one year after Lincoln was elected, the southern states wanted to secede, and they did.
Mainstream history, and even history told by members of the alternative news community, argue that the Civil War was just about fighting for the rights of all men, and abolishing slavery. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this just isn't true. If Abraham Lincoln was the great emancipator, and was fighting to free slaves, please consider the following quote from a speech he gave in Charleston Ill. in 1858:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
So there you have it, that there is one for the history books. However, to prop up the official narrative and historical facts of the Civil War, mainstream historians try to ignore many of Lincoln's racist comments, and evidenced here; I would say he was quite far from becoming an abolitionist, and Civil Rights champion.
Getting back to the civil war and secession, lets examine as to what exactly took place under law. First to get an understanding of historical events, I will do a quick breakdown of what happened.
In January of 1861, the southern states began to secede with South Carolina being the first, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.
On March 27, 1861; one of the most hidden, yet important dates in the history of America had an event take place few mention. Why? What happened? - The southern states walked out of Congress on this day, and the quorum to conduct business was lost. Under parliamentary law, the only votes the Congress could take, were those votes to set a time to reconvene, to then take votes on a further date and time to conduct business again under constitutional authority. However, this was NOT done. The southern states walked out of the House and Congress without a vote, and Congress became Sine Die (without day), and at this point congress ceased to exist as a lawful, deliberative body. All powers of Congress were lost, such as the power to declare war.
The Lieber Code
Under law, the United States actually ceased to exist under constitutional authority, the President knew he in fact, had no real lawful or executive power. The declaration of Martial Rule was codified by General Orders 100, or the Lieber Code. This fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the several states.Through the Lieber Code, the non-existent body politic operated in a fictitious manner, which brings me to the next point, and will go on to show how the system was designed by unnamed conspirators long before the Civil War.
Civil War Reconstruction - The 14th Amendment
Since history has taught us minimal truths in terms of public schooling, (1 of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto) it is no wonder one does not come across such truths to digest and make sense of.
After the Civil War, The United States was quite frankly a broken country still operating under Martial Rule, with suspension of the Organic Constitution. One must remember, that the Constitution is in fact a contract, and since the contract was breached, it was effectively null and void. This is where the 14th Amendment comes in.
But first, lets take a quick peak at the 13th Amendment, as it existed before the NEW 13th Amendment was ratified.
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."Well, this is certainly interesting! Why wasn't I taught this in public schools you may ask!? Here is just one simple explanation to why the original 13th Amendment was illegally replaced. Lawyers. Lawyers are members of The BAR Association of America, and thus understand law, enabling them to rise up in the world of politics. One should not be surprised so many presidents have gone to law school, and have Titles such as "Esquire". Go look up the word esquire in a Law Dictionary to see what I mean.
Now, to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is a sort of enigma, and it passes by you quite often in recent times with whispers of it from politicians when the economy slides further and further downhill. You know, the question the validity of the debt part? This is what you hear constantly, and I would bet most Americans never even looked at the 14th Amendment; never mind dissected and studied it. So for understanding, I will show the important section that serve to better understand the appropriate context I will be getting into, down below:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Pretty simple stuff I would presume, right? Well, not so fast Charlie. The first question I would pose is, why would the government (at the time still operating "illegally" or by de facto status) need to define what a citizen is? What is the reason for such verbiage when, if everything is peachy keen and the Organic Constitution was in tact; would the Congress have to essentially alter the Constitution?
The 14th Amendment, and more precisely Section One is what I would call a nefarious and subversive act of war on the minds of every American. Lets examine the language herein: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. - Well, just hold on a minute there Harry, that seems rather straight forward, doesn't it? See, these bills, acts, provisions, statutes, and laws, are all exactly that - laws. Written with purpose and meaning you may not be familiar with. For the sake of preventing a book from being printed here, I will define a word found in what was just stated for further context below:
(Black Law Dictionary 5th Edition)
SUBJECT: One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.It is important to note that prior to the Civil War, the several States in the Union, enjoyed a republican form of government. However, after the civil war, we came under the de facto governmental system, and came under the New World Order's carefully executed democracy.
The 14th Amendment gave a new status to every person on the land, which of course was that of a citizen. As a U.S. citizen, you are now under the rule of the foreign United States de facto government, pulled away from your states constitution, and caught in the web of the Corporate controlled dictatorship.
Let us now take a look at Section 3 of said amendment, as I feel this is important to understand the how and why this came to be:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Under section 3 in today's world, this again seems like a very straight forward law that seeks to prevent hostiles from gaining political office, and this is where opponents disagree with me most. Just as the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with freeing slaves, this law had little to do with security of government, or today what we call "National Security".
Section 3 of said Amendment had to be inserted and ratified for two reasons. As I stated above, this had little to do with national security; I did not say nothing to do with. (Now my detractors have no standing on how my words were presented) First, what this did was further secure the NEW de facto government, by preventing any dissenters from pre-civil war times from gaining their office back. After all, secession was seen as rebellion. How can this be? Remember the adage, he who wins the war writes the history. Second, notice what it is saying here. Who in office rebelled, that by a vote of 2/3rds by Congress could have the disability of not gaining office removed? Of course, this further proves that the Organic Constitution was overthrown, and the new government de facto was curiously excusing themselves.
Furthermore, let us understand exactly what the 14th Amendment was really for. The excuse for war is always brought by the Hegelian dialectic, thus enabling the controllers behind the scene to control outcomes of these wars. The Civil War was in essence a bankers war, to bring about the furtherance of the World Communist Military Dictatorship of World Government. Said amendment, puts you under the jurisdiction of the State via personhood status; through citizenship, and of the executive, foreign military dictatorship of the United States. A corporate, military power that sees you as chattel, or a slave the is (under law) working in voluntary servitude. You see, the Civil War ended INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, but nothing was said of VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Yes, you are a bond slave of the State.
Earlier in this article I mentioned how the original 13th Amendment disappeared from the Constitution, and was replaced by the new 13th Amendment. Here is where EVER MAN'S slavery was legalized. Through personhood status, black and white men can no longer be held under forced slavery; due to the war that was being fought. The war that was being fought was a war to ENSLAVE all men, and their legal fictions through the new reconstruction amendments that secured the power of the International Banks. Since all PERSONS, reside in Washington D.C. you are now under the new contract, and are SUBJECT to it's laws.
To conclude, what is better known as the reconstruction amendments, through the Civil War, the common law and the Organic Constitution were overthrown to seat the new democratic de facto government that you vote in to office, and give power to. The only way to regain our freedom, is to stop contracting under the 14th amendment, and in essence discontinuing allegiance to a foreign government. The reconstruction amendments were an extended effort of the war that has been waged through the Civil War. The Constitution of today simply resembles the Organic Constitution, but more importantly it puts you under the STATE (Washington D.C.) removing yourself from your original place under your individual nation state, which constitution was also superseded by the de facto body politic.