Ted Kennedy to be "Knighted"
Submitted by FoxCreek on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 10:09
Can there be any clearer evidence of High Treason?
Before you get in a rage and go off to hang the bastard, remember that the Lord works in mysterious ways.
The fat bloated sack has brain cancer.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/20...
»





















These folks are the 'loyalists' and have paid homage to
Britain and the Queen. He is NOT an American!!!!
maybe
they will miss and the sword will swing about a foot lower.
From the missing 13th amendment
"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."
MEANING of the 13th AMENDMENT
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads
as follows:
"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."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the
"title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to
"nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss
this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the
British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles,
anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can
be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:
* First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of
the Constitution of the United States (1787);
* Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional
"title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and
according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.
Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of
nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their
citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several
times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though
"titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding
fathers than is readily apparent today.
http://www.tomdavisbooks.com/library/13thamend.html#mean13
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/13th.htm
No 13th amendment?
Is that due to the same reasoning that skyscrapers skip the 13th floor?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Don't be such a turd. The missing 13th amendment was written
in over 2/3 of the states constitutions at the time. Research it. I found it to be revealing and fascinating about our true ties to the real rulers of this land. 1812 was about the the control over the issue of currency due to the BUS charter not being renewed and the titles of nobility that would decapitate all ties to England, not the BS you were forced to regurgitate in school.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Sorry, I couldn't resist ...
I do find this topic quite interesting though ...
But I have found through my research that ...
some people jumped the gun and that there is no evidence of the final state approval that was required.
Not saying that that is correct. Just saying it is not a black and white issue.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Read the
post titled:
"In January, 1810, Senator"
In January, 1810, Senator
There is a 13th amendment...Abolition of Slavery (1865)]
The following is about the missing/original 13th amendment.
In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of
Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the
Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass
this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States
for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required
thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25,
1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb.
2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811;
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec.
13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27,
1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could
ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interrupted this very rapid
move for ratification.
No record has been found that the State of Connecticut ever acted
to either accept or reject this original 13th Amendment. Yet, it
was published in three separate editions of "The Public Statute
Laws of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835. Then, without record or
explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions
prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a
legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has
been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution in
this and many other states until around the Civil War period -
when it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent printings. It
was found to have been printed by the legislature of this State in
the following: 1821 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1821 pg. 19 1824 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1824 pg.18-19 1835 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, compiled in obedience to a resolve of the General
Assembly passed May, 1835, to which is prefixed the Declaration of
Independence & Constitution of the United States and the State of
Connecticut, published by the authority of the State of
Connecticut. The Marginal note in all three publications reads:
"Citizenship forfeited by the acceptance, from a foreign power, of
any title of nobility, office or emolument of any kind, &c." The
prima facie evidence of ratification of this Amendment is
overwhelming. Since the creditors of this bankruptcy are foreign
powers and this "unacountable committee of lawyers'" spoken of by
Robert H. Bork have accepted and retained the "office of trustee"
for these creditors and foreign powers, their Citizenship has
been forfeited by this acceptance.
http://www.calneva.com/money/lawsuit3.htm
USAUK
Don't get mad at poor old Gordon Brown. He's just in town to announce the New World Order from our pulpit in congress.
High Treason for sure!!!
Oh, how it burns me to see the reception Gordon Brown is receiving as I witness our Congress licking his boots as he promotes globalization and pushes his green climate change lies!!!
I'm glade you have posted
this, as I am watching G. Brown NOW!! 10:25 central time on c-span in the house speech, and just announced Kennedy's knight hood and the whole house stood at that announcement. makes me sick to look at all the traitor's that without a doubt have Not read the constitution.
lol....... the chappaquidick
lol....... the chappaquidick kid... ( yes I know it is spelled wrong.. oh well)
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
Mary Jo Kopechne
Is spinning in her grave fast enough to become a source of alternative energy.
Kennedy
would have to retire from politics first or else it will be Unconstitutional.
Restore the Republic
As long as he has the
As long as he has the consent from congress,he can.
Article I section 9
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.
What is consent?How do we the people know it was given?
Why would they allow such things?
Where does their loyalty lie?
I find it offensive that he(Gordon Brown) is addressing congress.I could care less what he has to say,or what his objectives are.If he wants to have a meeting with the president than that's fine,but the congress is not a pulpit for other "leaders" to preach.
An entangling alliance that should not be and one that will just drive the war machine.
------------------------------------------
"Fiat money is an oxymoron...it is—government issued coupons with expiration dates printed in invisible ink." - Darryl Schoon
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
He is not the only one
and this is unconstitutional.
The list is large
Lou Gerstner
Bill Gates
Stormin Normen S
Bush 41
Rudy Guilianni on and on and on
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Top of list...
Sir Alan Greenspan
Foreign Nationals
don't get the title of "sir." But you are right about AG.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
This is proof
that we are still subjects to the crown.
F' the Queen mum.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein