The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment

Bank Index ^

[Suzie_Cue]

The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment, by Lisa Giulani

The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment
by Lisa Guliani

“…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.”
~ The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ~

“…A country cannot be both ignorant and free.”
~ Thomas Jefferson ~

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People.”
~ George Washington ~

Have you ever noticed how many lawyers there are in our government? We see them everywhere, in both high and low level positions. This is nothing new. Roughly half of our Founding Fathers were lawyers. As far as the top spot in government, 21 of our former Presidents were lawyers (or well-read in the law). The most recent former U.S. President just so happens to also be an attorney - Bill Clinton – who is, conveniently, married to another attorney, Hillary Rodham Clinton - Senator of New York. Of those former Presidents who were lawyers, one was called the “Dark Horse” President (James Polk), another was the only U.S. president to never marry (James Buchanon), and still another married the daughter of a banker (William McKinley). This last example will segue nicely into a discussion about lawyers and bankers and a little known amendment to the Constitution numbered 13.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution? Not familiar with it? It’s no wonder. No one ever discusses the 13th Amendment – in fact, our so-called government has been ignoring its existence since the 1800’s. However, it has been the subject of some controversy in certain circles, and for good reason. You see, the 13th Amendment, also called the “Title of Nobility” Amendment, which prefaced this article – deals with prohibiting LAWYERS from holding positions of public office within the U.S. government.

But, wait a minute. Lawyers are EVERYWHERE in our government, aren’t they? We see them scurrying around like little cockroaches all through the corridors of our federal buildings. Attorneys are constantly vying for public positions – in fact, it seems that the only way to even GET many of these governmental positions is to BE a lawyer. We have come to accept this as commonplace, standard practice – a requirement, even. We may not like or trust this practice, but it has always been the way things were done. Or is it? Why haven’t we heard more about this 13th Amendment if such an important piece of legislation prohibits attorneys from holding these positions? Well, that is an interesting tale, but it may not surprise you very much. It is yet another example of the dog-and-pony show being performed before the American people, and is why we see the lawyers swarming all over government like germ-infested cockroaches spreading disease and polluting public policy. When this piece is finished, I am going to go wash my hands.

Let’s go back to the time of the American Revolution now. America, in those days, reigned as a shining example of how a unified people could overthrow a tyrannical European monarchy and win a great struggle against oppression. The European monarchs at that time saw America as a huge threat to their very survival. They despised everything that America symbolized, and felt threatened enough to want to destroy us, so they plotted and connived and went to extraordinary means to justify a desired end.

In order to subvert our system of government, the monarchs decided to play dirty pool and exert some clever counter-revolutionary maneuvers utilizing the now-familiar English bankers. We’ve said their names a zillion times, so you know who they are by now. The monarchs, in collusion with the bankers, used money as a way to get people to commit treason. Yes, when they say money is the root of all evil, they’re not kidding. The royal paranoids even sent spies to America to infiltrate our system of government.

In my research, I came across some interesting documents on the missing 13th Amendment. Of particular interest to me was one which refers to researcher David Dodge, who found a book in the Library of Congress Law Library which he discovered in the rare book section, titled “2 VA Law,” which is un-catalogued. The volume “reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by lawyers.” As Dodge puts it, “There is no public record that this book even exists.” What?? Secret scheming by lawyers? Imagine that. Sound farfetched to you? It sounds right on the “money” to me. Throughout our history, bankers and lawyers have worked in conjunction to rule the world and destroy the United States. They almost succeeded a few times, and now look who’s at it again… Take the Depression of the 1930’s, for example, which was a classic case of illicit banking practices that impacted hard working members of society in extreme ways over an extended period of time. Ask any elderly person to tell you about the Great Depression. If they can recall the past, they will surely provide explicit information about the harrowing days of that period. In current times, politicians, lawyers, bankers, and governmental agencies work together like some malignant tumor raging through the nation - further contaminating an already infected system, spreading more political and economic disease throughout the Machine and the country. Who suffers? We all do – everybody that is, except for the bankers and the lawyers, who always seem to float to the top of the cesspool.

The 13th Amendment is also called the “Title of Nobility” Amendment because it refers to the word “Esquire,” which was (and still is) used by attorneys behind their names. The word comes from the English. Back in the old days, the allegiance of “Esquire” lawyers was called into question by our forefathers. Why? Because they couldn’t be trusted as far as you could throw them. An attorney with a title behind his name was deemed loyal to the monarchy in those days - therefore, our ancestors wanted to prohibit any person bearing such a title or those receiving “honors” (exemptions the rest of the citizenry are not privy to) from holding public office. I think it’s safe to say that people in general regard lawyers warily to this very day, with good cause. Why? Because things haven’t changed a whole helluva lot. They just leave a bad taste in your mouth…

The reasoning behind the proposal of the 13th Amendment was so that those persons (lawyers) in political power positions could not dictate or influence public policy by using their skills to destroy or subvert the government. In fact, the 13th Amendment makes it very clear that any person within the ranks of government holding public office, found to have a title of nobility or to be accepting “honors” must lose his position and FORFEIT HIS CITIZENSHIP to the United States. Wow!! This is a serious penalty! Our Founding Fathers considered “titles of nobility” a great threat to the continuity of the Republic, and so this penalty was added to the amendment to get the point across that such titles would not be tolerated in American government. The 13th Amendment was put into place to protect the People from corrupt, dishonest lawmakers. (What happened along the way?) At the time of its proposal in 1789, and thereafter, there were forces opposed to its ratification. Gee, does this come as any surprise? We know who they were – and are. THEY were and are the Controllers and their henchmen – and THEY will tell you that this amendment was never ratified. However, there is evidence to suggest that this is just another lie among a dung-heap of lies we have been fed. THEY blow a lot of smoke up the ole chimney, don’t they?

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “honor” this way: “Anyone obtaining or having a privilege over another.”

Researcher Dodge uses a modern example of a judge as one who accepts “honors”. Let’s face it, judges are granted perks which we “common” citizens are not. I’m sure you and I can think of other governmental positions that afford “perks” or “honors”. Incidentally, if you are not a lawyer, you will never be a judge in these modern times. Sorry, but it isn’t like days of old when one didn’t have to be a lawyer to counsel another in court, or to hold positions like attorney general. In the early times of our country, a citizen could obtain such an office without having to be an actual attorney. Try that now and see how far you get. Let’s just say that the corporate UNITED STATES will not recognize the ordinary citizen in this manner.

The 13th Amendment sought to keep lawyers from gaining a political advantage over others, thereby restricting them from achieving power and control over the rest of us. And, despite the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were attorneys, they realized quite keenly how easily a person skilled in that profession could exploit the system and the citizenry by using legal prowess, political savvy and government/corporate connections to personal advantage. They wanted to ensure that each person had equality under the law. At least those great men had some scruples. It’s a shame that legislation proposed by men of real honor and integrity was overridden by some corrupt, greedy power-mongers lacking any scruples, honor, or integrity of their own.

At the time of its initial proposal in 1789, and again in 1810, there were 17 states in the Union. To become part of the Constitution, the 13th Amendment had to be ratified by 13 of the 17 states. It is fully accepted that ratification was achieved in 12 states. They are, according to the National Archives:

Maryland –12- 25-1810
Ohio – 1-31-1811
Kentucky – 1-31-1811
Pennsylvania – 2-6-1811
Delaware – 2-2-1811
New Jersey – 2-13-1811
Vermont – 10-24-1811
Tennessee – 11-21-1811
Georgia – 12-13-1811
North Carolina – 12-23-1811
Massachusetts – 2-27-1812
New Hampshire – 12-10-1812

Virginia was the final state required to ratify the 13th Amendment and add it to the Constitution. However, conveniently enough, a little thing called the War of 1812 got in the way. It is interesting to note the timing of the War of 1812 coincided with the proposal of the 13th Amendment. Very interesting. Focus on Virginia’s position on the ratification of this amendment waned due to the ensuing war and so, that state’s decision was not made known until 1819.

The Virginians, it appears, RATIFIED the 13th Amendment by the method of publication and dissemination, which is allowed by the Constitution. This was perfectly well within their right. The state of Virginia published a special edition of the Constitution in a re-printing of the Virginia Civil Code on March 12, 1819. This special edition contained all Amendments, including the 13th. So, the 13th Amendment has an official date of ratification, as published in the special edition of the Constitution and Virginia Civil Code by the state of Virginia. The date is, as stated, March 12, 1819.

The Constitution accepts publication and dissemination of an Amendment as evidence of a legislatures’ position in a ratification process. I wonder why the corporate UNITED STATES does not. According to Alfred Adask and David Dodge, who conducted extensive research on this subject, this publication/dissemination process is what is known as “prima facie” evidence and a fully acceptable way of conducting the business at hand. Virginia, therefore, counted as the required 13th state to make the 13th Amendment a LEGITIMATE addition to the Constitution. Since it has not been repealed, it is still the law today, unless you ask someone in the CORPORATE UNITED STATES PHONY BALONEY GOVERNMENT. (Pardon the cyber screaming, but the corporation likes the cap-lock key.) Nobody pays any attention to adhering to the 13th Amendment, of course, because it is somehow considered NOT RATIFIED, which is ludicrous. This is clearly evidenced by the scores of lawyers infesting Washington, resistant insects that crawl all over Congress, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. It’s ironic, because the 14th Amendment is in full effect, and what proof do we have that THAT was ever ratified? You will even see the 14th referred to as “purportedly ratified”. Yet, the difference is this: the 13th Amendment does NOT benefit the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, while the 14th Amendment DOES. Ahhh, there’s the rub…

The corporate UNITED STATES continues to breed and disperse more lawyer cockroaches throughout the halls of injustice, where they continue to metastasize like an insidious cancer and pollute public policy with evil manipulations. What are ANY lawyers doing in public office? THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AT ALL.

What do you have to say about this, Virginia? How does it feel to have your vote discounted and swept under the rug? What does the rest of America have to say about it? Shall we persist in allowing this BREACH of the Constitution to go on? Times are changing swiftly, my friends, and the waters are rising higher and higher. The political and economic coals are hotter than ever, and I wouldn’t count on anything in this country “remaining the same” for much longer.

Are WE, Americans, so complacent and comfortable that we choose to ignore the LAW ourselves – even when we KNOW about it? Every single lawyer IN PUBLIC OFFICE today should be placed under the spotlight of the 13th Amendment. Period. Our Founding Fathers spelled it out quite clearly, yet nobody listened. Now we have an infestation, a massive swarm. Can you imagine how much we could clean up our alleged government if we got rid of the lawyers that aren’t supposed to be there in the first place? Wow, what a concept. Wouldn’t it be nice to say, Bye-Bye Hillary? You know it would. And that’s just for starters. Just think about all we could accomplish if we set our minds to cleaning house for real. The implications are enormous!!

The Founding Fathers wanted this Republic to sustain. They handed us the tools with which to accomplish this objective. We did not use them well. Some have not been used at all. It is now time to learn how – and we’d best do it quick. We can no longer afford to be ignorant, complacent, silent, or lazy. We cannot afford to be too comfortable and consumed with our own personal situations. America needs our help if it is to survive. We have, in the past, forfeited OUR roles in the bigger picture, believing “government” would take care of us. “Government” has FAILED to do so. The corporate UNITED STATES takes care of its own. Not you and me. We have the RIGHT, RESPONSIBILITY, and the OBLIGATION to correct this situation. We need to INVOKE the 13th Amendment. We need to ASSERT ourselves as we have not done since the American Revolution. We need to take control of Information Dissemination and restore OUR POWER AS SOVEREIGNS over a corporation that has usurped both its power and its limitations. We MUST dissolve the monopolistic evil circle that controls what we see, read, and hear. We MUST free ourselves from the chains that bind us into slavery and begin immediately - because, I tell you, if we do not, the window of opportunity will slam down and be closed forever.

We CANNOT and MUST NOT allow the Controllers, with the help of their henchmen (lawyers and bankers) to succeed in destroying America. The very survival of our nation depends upon what we do today and tomorrow and all the tomorrows we have left.

I guess it comes down to whether or not WE, THE PEOPLE, have a backbone as our ancestors did. Whether or not WE believe strongly enough in those ideals we like to sing about. Are you a Patriot – or have comfort and complacency made you a coward? Think long and hard before you answer that one. If you wait too long, you can kiss your perceptions of “freedom” and “comfort” goodbye, because, like the 13th Amendment, which lies like a ghost in a forgotten grave, if good men continue to do nothing, they will see those “comforts” they now enjoy vanish before their eyes – and America, Land of Liberty, will be lost to us and our children.

Mark Twain says it best: “In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man and brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”

Where does your loyalty lie? With the corporation of the UNITED STATES OR with America? We don’t need to “kill” all the lawyers, as the popular T-shirt says. We need to get them out of government.

Let’s STOP the Machine.

[Kevin Curry]

The has been some debate in the past as to the usage of the term "Esquire", still used by many attorneys today.

You are free to call yourself a biscuit tin in this country if you'd like, but that doesn't make you one.

Titles of nobility are only efficacious if bestowed by someone having requisite authority--a monarch--as recognized within the context of a nation's laws and traditions. In this country, an attorney who adopts the title "esquire" is adopting an honorific that absolutely no one is bound by the law to recognize. Any US citizen might call himself an knight, an earl, a grand duke, or even a crown prince and it would mean absolutely nothing.

[Roscoe]

There is no reason to argue with psychos who believe this stuff, they are all going to the same part of hell that Matthews is in.

Let's hope.

[hoosierham]

It pretty much boils down to if people fail to challenge a new law or interpretation of an old one over time that law becomes accepted by general consensus .

Let me also say that I think Matthews' actions were the ultimate in stupidity ; he evidently never heard of choosing one's battles. I have strong reservations about the constitutionality of several areas of American gov't agencies regulation of our freedoms but fools who die in quixotic battles with the power of the State help only the oppressors.

Only when and if you can convince those who write and enforce the laws that a policy is beneficial to them will that policy be widespread.

[Sledge]

Forget the whole "Esquire" thing for a moment and think of it this way. Here is a Constitutional Amendment that was ratified between 1812 and 1819, and for forty years was not only accepted as ratified, but was documented in numerous lawbooks published by the States and Territories during this time period.

Then comes the Civil War and the 13th disappears and is replaced with the current one. The argument against the amendment is that the State of Virginia never notified the U.S. Secretary of State in writing, and that no record existed in Virginia of the ratification. The fact that no evidence exists because the records were destroyed by Federal troops is never mentioned.

Read it again and concentrate on the bolded section:

“…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.” ~ The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ~

The amendment was passed to eliminate foreign influence on our government, which was rampant with foreign payoffs in the early years. Would that we had this amendment now. What about Al Gore & the Buddist monks? Clinton and the Chinese? Cynthia McKinney and the Arabs? What about all the "citizens" presently working for the Islamists in this country?

What is really ironic is that all the State of Virginia would have to do is send a letter to Colin Powell that the amendment was ratified, and it would go into effect. There was no time limit on ratification when the this 13th amendment was passed and ratified.

Do a web search on the "Lost 13th amendment" or the "Real 13th amendment" for more information. People have been rooting around dusty old courthouses and libraries for years researching this issue.

[Roscoe]

Then comes the Civil War and the 13th disappears and is replaced with the current one.

Those damn saucer aliens and their memory erasing rectal probes!

[Sledge]

Those damn saucer aliens and their memory erasing rectal probes!

You mean Ape-raham Lincoln and his Yankees with their memory erasing torches and jail cells. Isn't it interesting that it disappeared about the same time as our Republic?

Do the seach and read. You have nothing to lose but your ignorance of the subject.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Here is a Constitutional Amendment that was ratified between 1812 and 1819, and for forty years was not only accepted as ratified, but was documented in numerous lawbooks published by the States and Territories during this time period.

It is my understanding that this is simply not the case. There was an important legal codification, which listed the proposed Constitutional Amendment, since it was being considered at the time of publication. In a later edition, bad editing led to including this 'amendment' as part of the constitution. Later editions eliminated it. There has never been a citation of any document, speech, or newspaper article, ever referring to the Amendment as having been ratified. The reason is simple. It was never ratified.

[dread78645]

Correct, the proposal passed congress in 1810.

12 states ratified, 3 rejected, 2 took no action: VA & SC.

Then the war broke out and other things demanded attention.

By 1817 some copies of the constitution showed the amendment and some didn't, and some had the BOR with the original 12 proposals, making the "Titles of Nobility the 15th !

Congress authorized Sec of State JQ Adams to inquire of each state which had passed the proposal. Thats were the above list came from. Congress held hearings to regularize the ratification process, the "Virginia Commission", including formal notice to the Sec of State of votes.

VA finally did ratify the proposal in 1819, but never gave the State department formal notice.
It wouldn't have mattered, 'cause by that time 4 new states had joined the Union and now 16 total states were required to ratify.

VA kept publishing this "amendment" as passed until 1849, when a editor preparing a new edition of the code of Virginia for publication, checked the validity of the amendment.

Wow. that got a little longer than i thought ...
Did I miss anything ?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Did I miss anything

It looks like you have pretty well gotten in complete, except that I am sure the tin-foil types will demand citations. I have bookmarked it, because we seem to have a real infestation of these types.

[Sledge]

From the article -

The Virginians, it appears, RATIFIED the 13th Amendment by the method of publication and dissemination, which is allowed by the Constitution. This was perfectly well within their right. The state of Virginia published a special edition of the Constitution in a re-printing of the Virginia Civil Code on March 12, 1819. This special edition contained all Amendments, including the 13th. So, the 13th Amendment has an official date of ratification, as published in the special edition of the Constitution and Virginia Civil Code by the state of Virginia. The date is, as stated, March 12, 1819.

Wouldn't the publication of the Virginia code with the ratified amendment in 1819 be Prima Facia evidence of ratification? And if it was a mistake, why would it have printed by the following states:

State	Publications
Colorado	1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut	1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota	1862, 1863, 1867
Florida	1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia	1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois	1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana	1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa	1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas	1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky	1822
Louisiana	1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine	1825, 1831
Massachusetts	1823
Michigan	1827, 1833
Mississippi	1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri	1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska	1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina	1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories	1833
Ohio	1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania	1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island	1822
Virginia	1819
Wyoming	1869, 1876

Source: http://www.freedomdomain.com/orig13th02.html

Thats a lot of mistakes.

dread78645 said:

VA finally did ratify the proposal in 1819, but never gave the State department formal notice. It wouldn't have mattered, 'cause by that time 4 new states had joined the Union and now 16 total states were required to ratify.

While it may be true that 4 new states had joined the Union by 1819, the new states were not admitted to the Union at the time of the amendments' passage. Their ratification, or lack thereof would be a moot point. Only the 17 states existant at the time of passage were presented the amendment for ratification, and only those 17 states counted in the ratification totals.

The real problem here, as I pointed out, and dread reiterated, is that Virginia never sent a letter of ratification to the Secretary of State. Since there was no time limit on ratification at that time, Virginia could send a letter of ratification now and cause the amendment to once again be accepted as ratified.

Check out the link supplied for an extensively documented essay on the subject. It covers the ratification issue, the nobility issue, and interestingly enough, the strange timing of the War of 1812, which occured during the ratification process.

Regards,

Sledge

[John Locke]

The five orders of nobility, from most to least exalted, are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

Below them are the Baronets (hereditary knighthood) and Knights. An Esquire is properly an attendant on a knight; the title is vocational and in course of time an esquire could expect to become a knight. Any other use of the term is a modern abuse (dating from the 16th century or thereabouts).

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Only the 17 states existant at the time of passage were presented the amendment for ratification, and only those 17 states counted in the ratification totals.

I am afraid that this is pure Barbara Streisand, Sledge. The original 11th Amendment, proposed by the first Congress, was announced as ratified about 10 years ago, after the 38th state ratified it. According to your logic, it only would have required 9 states to ratify, since there were only 12 states at the time of the first Congress (Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution yet).

The simple fact is that three/fourths of all states which exist at the time of the ratification by the last state are necessary to ratify.

by the method of publication and dissemination, which is allowed by the Constitution.

Since you are so particular about the Constitution, I am sure that you will be happy to quote the line in the Amendment clause containing the words 'publication and distribution'. I won't hold my breath.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Wouldn't the publication of the Virginia code with the ratified amendment in 1819 be Prima Facia evidence of ratification? And if it was a mistake, why would it have printed by the following states

Prima Facie evidence is insufficient to prove ratification. The reason a large number of states reported it ratified is because they all used the same mistaken source, referred to above. Real evidence that the Amendment had been passed would be any legislation or legal decision citing the amendment. (It is true that the fact that no such references exist does not, by itself, disprove ratification.)

[Cato]

I read about lawyers being down with cockroaches but nothing about cop killers and such. I also read nothing about Tim McV fans in this article or in any of the comments.

Your comments are nothing but a slick attempt to CENSOR SPEECH using a canard.

You want to SHOW ME the offenses you speak of?? I may have missed them.

It is getting as though UNLESS you SPEAK only ABOUT how great Bush is and how all his policies are better than mom and apple pie you are a heretic or worse.

No greater threat comes to a Constitutional Republic than from people who want to stifle discussion using such tactics.

CATO

[Who is John Galt?]

"No greater threat comes to a Constitutional Republic than from people who want to stifle discussion using such tactics."

Bump...

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

No greater threat comes to a Constitutional Republic than from people who want to stifle discussion using such tactics.

Well, we just stifled your girl Cynthia McKinney (she hates Bush and the US almost as much as you do). I guess you and she will just have to go to DU and cry.

[Cato]

Well, we just stifled your girl Cynthia McKinney

Ain't my gal. Who writes your lines?

(she hates Bush and the US almost as much as you do).

My aren't we making all kinds of crazy ASSUMPTIONS anbd Crank Charges. Why not Accuse me of treason and really show all of US your real keen wit.

I guess you and she will just have to go to DU and cry.

Ain't crying about this exchange.

But I do worry that my country is being led astray by your kind.

CATO

[Cato]

What questions??

If the terrorists hate us for our freedoms…. The simple solution is to take our freedoms away -Suzie_Cue

Suzie_Q has listed one way that we can solve the hatred problem and it seem to be taking place. Flown lately, CJ??

Also, her facetious solution fits
with your plan for a "WELL ORDERED AMERIKA".

Very WELL ORDERED, right, CJ??

You think the rapture will happen before we see the total destruction of a third of the World. The events we are witnessing are the beginning of the Wyld Tymes before the Tribulation.

Will Jesus forgive you for your abominable conduct toward libertarians, even professed Christian libertarians?? I sure hope so CJ. I would Not want you to miss the wedding supper.

Take care,
CATO

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

But I do worry that my country is being led astray by your kind.

My kind is otherwise known as someone who adheres to my country in a time of war. Your kind is otherwise known as those who adhere to our enemies, because their is no neutrality in a time of war.

You are one of the whiners, who state that they have the right to say whatever they want, but are above being criticized. When someone else uses their free speech rights to oppose them, your kind writes: Your comments are nothing but a slick attempt to CENSOR SPEECH using a canard..

The enemies of the US have always claimed freedom of speech as a protection for their efforts to overthrow and enslave the American people, from German agents in WWI, anarchist bombers in the early years of this century, Nazi propagandists in the late 1930's, and Communists from the 1920's to the present day. This country has survived these enemies, and it will survive you.

[Who is John Galt?]

From your profile:

"I take my characterization of the character of LC Sulla somewhat from the recent series of Roman historical novels by Colleen McCollough...I see him as a man to be feared, hated, despised, admired and pitied..."

If you are hoping to be "feared, hated, despised, admired and pitied" here at FreeRepublic, you will have to improve the quality of your posts somewhat. As things stand, it would take a major effort on your part to rise above the level of 'pitifully amusing'...

;>)