by Michael Gaddy, ©2015

(Sep. 4, 2015) — It appears that Donald Trump has signed a contract with the devil. Fortunately for many, Trump was able to bring taboo subjects into popular discussion; topics the Republican Party hierarchy found most uncomfortable. The media whores had no choice but to cover these issues and the pasture full of candidates for the party’s nomination found themselves talking about subjects they would rather have avoided. Prime among those subjects was illegal immigration. Arguably, illegal immigration is just as dangerous to our sovereignty as is any nuclear agreement with Iran; whether by bombs, bullets or diluted sovereignty—dead is dead.

The debate on illegal immigration has brought to the forefront discussions about “anchor babies” and that has led to the questions of citizenship as is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. I have received multiple requests to address or attempt a clarification of the points in question.

As I see it, we long since fell into the trap of letting those who seek dominion and control over our everyday lives define the parameters of political discussion. We long since quit questioning the constitutionality of acts of elected officials but have instead allowed the argument to center on which one of the candidates can promise more of our stuff to lure other voters. It is rare indeed to hear any talking head of the media mention the constitution unless they believe it supports an act of tyranny or can be used as a term of disparity toward someone the government fears.

It certainly appears that everyone with a thumb is willing to pontificate on whether the 14th Amendment does or does not guarantee citizenship to those who are born anywhere within the 50 states. Some say it does, others claim it does not. I just finished reading an article in which the author stated one of the characteristics of an American citizen was their knowledge of American history. If that is indeed a qualifier for citizenship in this country and that qualifier is enforced, the population of this country would be cut by up to 98%. A person familiar with our history, our Constitution, Bill of Rights and our founding era could tell you in a minute the truths about the 14th Amendment.

Humor me for a moment if you would, please. Suppose I were to gather a group of people together and submit the following for their discussion insisting they debate only the points given. The debate would center on whether those within that chosen group were to pay me $5,000 each or pay me $10,000 each before they left the meeting. As previously stated, there could be no discussion whatsoever of whether each person owed me anything—the only thing that could be discussed was how much. Such are the parameters drawn by those who debate the citizenship qualifications/restrictions of the 14th Amendment.

In the intelligence community there is a phrase referred to as “Blowback.”  In that context Blowback is defined as the “unintended consequences of an operation that are suffered by the instigators of that particular action.”

Drowning in a sovereignty and culture destroying ocean of remorse and white guilt, the people of this country blindly accept the acts of Abraham Lincoln and the leaders of his Republican Party of 1865 as being some form of penance that must be paid for the terrible institution of slavery. We readily accept the flagellation using unconstitutional acts and laws in order to absolve ourselves from a sentence of history that will never be paid as long as we listen to the demands of those who claim to be oppressed. Simply ask anyone who claims racism, at what point of contrition or reparation the alleged debt would be paid. I can assure you in the politically prepared mind of those who claim racism, there is no point at which the debt is absolved.

The so-called Civil War was not fought entirely over slavery, no matter how many self-righteous Yankees and white-guilt ridden morons in the South claim it to be so. Lincoln’s war which killed almost a million people and used up resources that our country did not possess was fought over money, as are all wars. The problem is: when you kill that many people and steal that much money, some form of moral high ground must be claimed in order to avoid the wrath of the people from whom you stole the money and the relatives of all those people you killed. The purveyors of false history continue to use that faux moral high ground position and the attendant guilt imposed on the White race as weapons in their imposed dominion and control paradigm. The consummate race-baiters are members of government for the only benefit of their race baiting is more government.

Noted historian and author Thomas Fleming, hardly a Southern sympathizer, states in his book on Slavery titled, A Disease in the Public Mind, the cause of the war was two-fold. First, he cites what he refers to as the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England Yankee political class. Fleming states these Yankees believed they were God’s chosen people and they should rule America or perhaps the entire world. (I believe those folks’ ancestors are ruling our country today)

Secondly, Fleming lays the blame for the war at the feet of 25 or so New England abolitionists. These influential abolitionists in many cases had abandoned Christianity and embraced the mass murderer John Brown as their savior. Brown had committed several murders in Kansas, even killing entire families that did not own slaves. Included among those was the Doyle family. John Brown executed James Doyle and his two sons while making the wife and mother watch as she begged Brown to spare her family. Mahala Doyle would write to John Brown as he awaited the hangman in Charleston, Virginia (now West Virginia). Mrs. Doyle wrote she was “gratified to hear that you [Brown] were stopped in your fiendish career at Harpers Ferry with the loss of your two sons.” She also stated she wished her surviving son could be in Charleston “to tie the rope around Brown’s neck.”

Somehow, in my American History studies as a student in the public fool system, I never heard the facts surrounding the Yankee abolitionists who supported John Brown in his fiendish pursuits. I certainly didn’t hear what these wonderful people had to say concerning Brown and the Christian faith. Henry David Thoreau would write in his journal that “Brown was Jesus. He was a Puritan who had died in Cromwell’s army. Above all he was a Transcendentalist—with Emersonian faith in the power of the individual soul to ignore churches and sacred texts and achieve its own kind of salvation.” He described Brown as “that new saint, than whom none purer or more brave was ever led by love of men into conflict and death…the new saint who would make the gallows as glorious as the cross.”

William Lloyd Garrison was a “worshiper” of John Brown according to Fleming. Yankee Garrison possessed what was the prevailing attitude of New Englanders in that “they were inclined to believe in the moral depravity of anyone who disagreed with them.” An abolitionist friend of Garrison, one Henry C. Wright declared Jesus Christ a “dead failure” for allowing slavery to exist and insisted “John Brown would be power far more efficient than Christ.” People such as these used their influence in the press to create a campaign of hate for anything Southern. From actions concerning Confederate emblems and history, it appears the descendants of Garrison and Wright are alive and well throughout our country, many times having influence on school boards and positions of power within the educational community to continue spreading their campaign of hate for anything Southern in nature.

Frederick Douglass was not one of Brown’s financial backers but his name was found in several letters inside Brown’s abandoned carpetbag. As Thomas Fleming wrote, after Brown’s failure at Harpers Ferry “The former slave [Douglass] decided he might be safer in England and headed for the nearest ship.”

Revisionist historians have kept alive the fallacy that a great penance is owed by White people which contributes to the fact we accept any and all unconstitutional acts and kowtow to the wishes of minorities. Of course government continues to use the guilt trip in its pursuit of domination and control of the masses.

A great example of this political drivel is the acceptance of the 14th Amendment as valid. The argument should not center on whether the 14th Amendment does or does not grant citizenship to those who are born in this country but should concentrate on the fact the amendment was never properly ratified and every court decision based on it, including issues of citizenship, should be considered null and void and of no legal force whatsoever. The 14th Amendment was designed by the Republican Party leadership of 1865, led by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, as a continued punishment and total domination of the people of the South.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that both Stevens and Sumner were avid abolitionists cut from the same cloth as Thoreau, Garrison and others.

Thaddeus Stevens, according to Richard Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor, wanted no restoration of the Union under the Constitution which he referred to as “a worthless bit of old parchment.” He also stated “The White people of the South ought never again to be trusted with power, for they would inevitably unite with the Northern Copperheads and control the government.” He also said “The only sound policy was to confiscate the lands and property of the South and divide them among the Negroes.” Stevens, holding a position of power in the Republican Party and in the House of Representatives, was a leader in refusing to seat the members of the Senate and House of Representatives elected from the Southern states. This allowed the remaining republican members of Congress to create and propose the 14th Amendment. It should be stated that refusing to seat the elected Senators from the Southern states was a clear violation of Article V of the Constitution which states “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” Here we have the first validation the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.

The Northern states voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, but without the Southern states the required three-quarters as required by Article V were not secured. The Republican led congress then endorsed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which put the Southern states, with the exception of Tennessee, under martial law and military rule. To end this military subjugation the states of the South were required to ratify the 14th Amendment. In fact, Wisconsin Senator James Doolittle would declare “The people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet.”

“Contract coercion occurs when a contract agreement is entered into under conditions involving harm or threats of harm. State and federal laws require contracts to be entered into “knowingly” and “willingly” by all parties. Thus, if a party signs a contract due to coercion, the contract generally will not be considered legally enforceable.” ~ Legal Dictionary

Here is the second point which makes the 14th Amendment unconstitutional—it involved coercion by the Republican led Northern members of congress.

President Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 using the following terminology. “absolute despotism,…a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people…such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than 500 years…Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this…Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes.” Remember please, while President Johnson questioned the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act of 1867, Thaddeus Stevens stated he wanted no restoration of the Union and the Constitution was “a worthless bit of old parchment.” Unfortunately for our country and our Constitution, the Republican congress overrode the President’s veto. Third point the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.

The Southern states, facing Senator Doolittle’s threat of using the “point of the bayonet” to secure ratification, voted to ratify the 14th amendment but while the threats were flying and coercion was reigning supreme, two Northern states (New Jersey and Ohio) withdrew their ratification agreements. Therefore, there no longer existed the majority required for ratification. Fourth point the 14th Amendment is null and of no force.

Seeing the necessary states had not ratified the 14th, Congress, by joint resolution, declared the 14th Amendment valid. This congress violated the oath they had taken to the Constitution, ignored the ratification requirements of Article V and declared the 14th to be lawful and legal. No place in the Constitution does it grant the Congress the authority to declare any amendments to the Constitution valid or to alter the Constitution or Bill of Rights in any manner. Fifth point:  the 14th Amendment is invalid.

As citizens of this country, we can continue to allow the government to frame all of our discussions based on unconstitutional amendments and laws or we can grow a pair, stand up straight and call them on the deceptions and tyranny.

The illegal immigration “anchor baby” citizenship issue is just one of many of the unintended consequences of being ruled by several amendments that were never ratified constitutionally.

Should the people who read this Rant choose to continue to allow others to define the arguments and discussions in which their present, future and the future of their posterity will be subjected, I have but one question: Do you owe me $5,000 or do you owe me $10,000?

In Rightful Liberty


“We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.” ~Sydney Schanberg


Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Thank you Mr. Gaddy. I graduated from the public “fool” system in 1959 and heard very little of the detail you include in this article. Yes, I heard of John Brown and Harpers Ferry but none of the facts as you present them here. An enlightening “rant”.

    Semper Fi