The Hidden 14TH Amendment Agenda

THE HIDDEN 14TH AMENDMENT AGENDA

By Michael LeMieux
January 21, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

The history of the united States of America is not free of defect. But in spite of those defects we were able to fashion a society that rose above the norm of the time and created a nation founded on individual liberty.

One of the defects of the age becomes very much apparent when contrasted against the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in which it states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal.” And yet we were engaged in the practice of slavery. This is not disputed and the history of slavery has been upon the earth as long as we have recorded history. The Bible speaks of the slavery even during the time of Christ and before. So was there a legal difference between a person who was a slave and person who was a citizen? The answer is obviously yes. We will get into this a little later.

At the conclusion of the civil war, congress proposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments—abolishing slavery, and creating and granting federal citizenship, and suffrage (voting) for its new citizens. The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6th, 1865. It is interesting to note that the last state to ratify this amendment was Mississippi on March 5th, 1995, a full 130 years after the initial ratification, for a total of 36 out of our current 50 states...

visit source for full article.

Today we face the most aggressive expansion of federal power and control at the cost of our very freedom and liberty. I challenge each reader to compare the reasons we split from England against the government we now look to in Washington and decide – are we really free?


All Caps – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by dbates]

An interesting take on an interesting topic. I am curious how that would hold up in a court of law. We have almost come full round the circle of what the "people" are expected to understand. Our legal system was originally designed for the common man to understand and act in accord. Now you even need an attorney to die. We have been so screwed.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

www.newswithviews.com...

Please include your source when posting, and do not copy and paste so much material. We are interested in your opinion on the matter as opposed to an article that we can all read for ourselves.

The amendment that makes you "slaves" to your federal government just so happens to be the one that protects your property from government. Which is hilarious in my opinion, because it shows what a farce the people trying to push these ideas of federal slavery are.

So your country decided, after a civil war, to change the way it was governed. What's your point? That is generally what happens after a civil war, steps are taken to ensure it does not happen again. The Federalist North beat the Statist South, then in a final move of absolutely incredible idiocy, a Confederate sympathizer killed President Lincoln, the man who would have been the best friend of the South after the war.

There is a very simple fact here, the Confederacy lost the war, decisively in fact. When a side looses a war, usually it means that their ideology is not the one that is adopted by the victor. The Allies did not become Nazis after Germany's defeat in WWII.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


That is not the case, Texas won the war with Mexico yet we are still being invaded, and its being allowed by your federalist government.

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

That is not the case, Texas won the war with Mexico yet we are still being invaded, and its being allowed by your federalist government.

It's not my federalist government mate, I'm British and last I knew you got to keep your country after the wars with us.

As for the "invasion" of Texas, be realistic man! So you have immigration, an invasion involves armies and a take over of your government. Until I see some Mexican troops attacking the Alamo again, this isn't at all an invasion.

Honestly I'm all for immigration into your country, it's good for your economy and good for ours over here in the UK. The crime on the boarder is a major problem though. The drug runners, gun runners and other smugglers are criminals and should be taken down.

As for the war between Texas and Mexico, or the Texas War Of Independence, the result there was far more muddled and indirect than the United States Civil War ever was. The United States completely and utterly defeated the Confederate States and absolutely destroyed their capacity to make war upon anyone.

Texas did indeed defeat the army of Antonio López de Santa Anna, but they only gained independence for what is now the eastern-half of Texas. Texas' independence lasted for only ten years and during that time managed to never work out quite how to run a country.

By the time Texas was begging the United States to let them in in 1845, practically their entire military had been killed, their economy has crashed and burned, their currency was practically worthless and they were hopelessly in debt.

In the end it took the United States Army to capture what is now the western half of Texas from Mexico, and the US paid the debt that the new state had incurred during their time as an independent nation.

In the end the vast majority of Texans voted to join the US, and Sam Houston, was a strong federalist who refused to take an oath to the Confederacy in the Civil War.