Imagine a United States government that wasn’t infected by Clintons or an Obama. How would the nation morph from slavery to freedom without a Lincoln? Like people in general, there are good, there are some who aren’t and the Founders knew it.

While many enthusiastically misinterpret the line from William Shakespeare’s Henry the Sixth, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, there’s always been a suspicion when it comes to the self-serving motivations of those in the profession. Consider part of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution that is curiously missing.

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution.

Kinda’ makes one wonder who removed it and why….

If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from US Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
— The Missing 13th Amendment

Today, the idea of a constitutional controversy about the royals may seem kind of silly, but in 1812, the United States was fighting the British and had a rocky relationship with France. The fear of both nations using noble titles as bribes, along with pensions from a foreign government, was persistent. And both the Senate and the House easily passed the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” and passed it on to the states. By late 1812, a total of 12 states had approved the 13th Amendment and ironically, it needed a 13th state to become ratified. As the War of 1812 escalated, the TONA faded away as an issue and was never ratified.
— Constitution Center, 12/6/16

The “nobles” and “royals” in question were lawyers or those who could afford their services, and there didn’t seem to be much love for them. All you need do look at recent events to invoke memories of stories where lawyers always tend to take more care of themselves than their clients.

Yahoo will pay up to $85 million to settle a class action lawsuit over its massive data breach, reports the Recorder, a legal publication. That includes $50 million for compensation for up to 200 million affected users plus another $35 million for lawyers’ fees and expenses. People who already have credit monitoring and certify they plan to keep it for at least a year would be eligible for $100, according to the settlement.
— Fast Company, 10/24/18

So, why would the Founding Fathers and their predecessors be so wary of those in the law profession?

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”.

“Esquire”; a title many lawyers today bestow upon themselves simply because… they’re lawyers.

Any lawyer can take on the title esquire, regardless of what type of law they practice. Family lawyers, personal injury attorneys, and corporate lawyers all have the right to use esquire as a title. As a title, esquire, meaning shield bearer, originated in Great Britain and France as a term of nobility in the Middle Ages. It applied to the squire of a knight, who hoped to acquire a noble rank as he rose to knighthood himself. In The United States, however, the constitution prohibits noble titles.
— Dolman Law Group

It hasn’t stopped them because they’re special.

“Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents).

Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
— American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond

“Infiltrate” and “subvert”. Interesting choices of wording.

Now while our media, political class, and academia glorifies the profession (and don’t get us wrong; there ARE some good lawyers out there), not all during the early colonial days were enamored by those who practiced.

The [Plymouth] colony’s first trained lawyer, Thomas Lechford, did little to instill enthusiasm. He was disbarred for trying to influence a jury. Anti-lawyer sentiment was pervasive elsewhere as well, and the “ancient English prejudice against lawyers secured new strength in America.” The framers of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas in 1669 declared it a “base and vile thing to plead for money or reward.” Connecticut and Virginia during a portion of the seventeenth century prohibited lawyers from practicing. Early lawyers were often laymen helping friends or women serving the legal interests of absent husbands.
— Kermit L. Hall, The Magic Mirror: Law in American History

In fact, arguments have been made against any lawyer being able to hold public office… ever.

What follows is a case to Amend the Constitution to Prohibit Lawyers from holding elective public office. The Amendment shall read:

No Person who holds, or has held, a license to practice law; nor any person who has represented any entity (other than himself) in a court of law in these United States, may be elected to any public office.

What a wonderful world this would be….
— Herb Alpert, Lou Adler, Sam Cooke

Note the language in almost any piece of legislation written in “legalese” and then “nonprofit” entities like the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc. (intentionally structured so they don’t pay taxes) that sue the government to prevent enactment of laws passed by the people’s representatives they don’t approve of.

Meanwhile, elite colleges and universities churn out more and more lawyers, many advertise on television seeking customers to pile onto class action suits like the one against Yahoo!, where they reserve the bulk of settlements for themselves and the remaining change for their clients. While the media is lauding the fact that less than 40% of Congress today are lawyers, that’s still an impressive representation of those whose early instincts were how to deceive a jury and free those who were clearly guilty, shield the elite from the ramifications all of us would face, target businesses with suits that can result in opulent rewards for themselves, and while in office, write legislation complete with loopholes that can financially help friends and harm enemies.

Back when President Obama was implementing Obamacare, his spokesman promised, “Members of Congress will not receive anything that is not available to the public.” Indeed, Obamacare explicitly requires Congress to live under the same rules as everyone else, by kicking members and staff out of the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program and leaving them to enroll in health insurance through the law’s exchanges. Contrary to assurances and in violation of federal law, the Obama administration shielded lawmakers by granting Congress several types of special treatment unavailable to the public. Obama took these steps because he knew Congress would have quickly revamped or even repealed Obamacare if lawmakers had to live under its terms.
— Washington Examiner, 9/5/17

Bad lawyers can become judges; obviously also problematic. Way too many judge wannabes are all too willing to throw the innocent in jail in favor of their potential lucrative and powerful upward mobility.

The New England Center for Investigative Reporting found no case in Massachusetts where a prosecutor was disbarred for professional misconduct since 1974, when the state Board of Bar Overseers was created to hear complaints against attorneys. Only two public reprimands for professional misconduct were found in that 42-year span, and they came without fines or other punishment.

At least seven prosecutors whose behavior prompted courts to reverse convictions went on to higher posts. Some became judges and district attorneys.
— WGBH, 4/3/16

It’s also rare that judges face the music.

U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted by the Senate yesterday of engaging in a “corrupt conspiracy” to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him, marking the first time a federal official has been impeached, removed from office for a crime he had been acquitted of by a jury, and stripped the 53-year-old jurist of his lifetime, $89,500-a-year position.
— Washington Post, 10/21/89

Alcee Hastings is currently a United States Congressman.

The 45th president, Donald J. Trump, is NOT a lawyer, achieving more than those who’ve preceded him and cashed-in on their prior service, and look at how those with that oh-so-important legal pedigree are taking offense to his many successes that diminish their worth.

The bottom line is, according to the United States Constitution, there should be NO lawyers on Capitol Hill or any state or local government.

Government was meant to be run by the people, using verbiage and common sense that shouldn’t include legalese needing deciphering. Obviously lawyers would sue us all if their existence today in government was threatened but do you really think they could muster enough states to amend the Constitution?

Let’s hope one day we find out.

h/t Lisa S. Belanger JD

Should you find yourself in an altruistic mood, Facebook offers you a selection of nonprofits they deem worthy of your support. As you may have guessed, almost all are far-left.

Like the Southern Poverty Law Center is hurting for donations….

Aside from the fraud-ridden Wounded Warrior Project nonprofit, there doesn’t appear to be any choice offered for a nonprofit many on the right would donate to and few are any run by minorities. Not like this is really a surprise.

Should you wish to donate to a “personal cause” other than that which Facebook endorses, here’s their screening process to determine worthiness.

Looks harmless enough.

Now, here’s where things get interesting.

You’re offered a limited amount of choices and hope you fit into one of their categories.

If your fundraiser doesn’t fit into any one of the above, things now become subjective.

If approved, any donations that do come in may go through Facebook first. Maybe not for an outright “fee”, but they may hold onto your cash for a couple of days or so they can accrue interest before forwarding the donation to you. It’s probably also a given the same interest gathering process occurs should you donate to one of their endorsed, chosen nonprofits.

How benevolent and generous.

Even after meeting with the campus president, the now-culturally-appropriated Black Lives Matter chapter of the College of William & Mary issued some of their grievances on September 27th.

This is not about the ACLU. This is about liberals use of the concept of free speech in the furthering of White Supremacy… Our goal is to silence white supremacy, to not allow it a platform like the ACLU has done for a long time. It’s not just the ACLU that has done this, it’s liberal organizations. Most liberal students on this campus believe that white supremacy should be valued as free speech, as discourse, and we firmly disagree with that.
— BLM member

The left released a lioness into their backyard which has now entered their house and won’t leave.

#DismantleWhiteSupremacy
Tonight, we shut down an event at William & Mary where Claire Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, was speaking. In contrast to the ACLU, we want to reaffirm our position of zero tolerance for white supremacy no matter what form it decides to masquerade in.
— Black Lives Matter W&M Facebook post, 9/27/17

Gastañaga was introduced and began her remarks. That took all of around three minutes.

For the next hour and 41 minutes at the sparsely-attended event, it was the usual liberal chants in unison.

The event description for this “open discussion” says nothing about the ACLU’s controversial decision to help white supremacists sue Charlottesville. The tragic events in Charlottesville are only the latest in the ACLU’s long legacy of being on the wrong side of history. By hiding behind the rhetoric of the first amendment and free speech, the ACLU has provided a platform for the most extreme forms of white supremacy. When is the free speech of the oppressed protected? We know from personal experience that rights granted to wealthy, White, cis, male, straight bodies do not trickle down to marginalized groups. We face greater barriers and consequences for speaking. The ACLU and liberals believe that legality determines morality. Not too long ago, the constitution dictated that Black people only count as 3/5ths of a person. The Constitution cannot be your moral compass.

The arrogant stupidity and ignorance of history permeates the college level….

In contrast to the ACLU, we want to reaffirm our position of zero tolerance for white supremacy no matter what form it decides to masquerade in. When the president of the United States refuses to condemn brutal violence committed in the name of genocide against Black people, indigenous people, and people of color, it is unacceptable to actively provide a platform for those who would perpetuate it. To those of you who disagree, we want to remind you: Black lives matter. Trans lives matter. Queer lives matter. Muslim lives matter. Native lives matter.
— Black Lives Matter W&M, statement read during protest

The group of mostly white “Black Lives Matter” students left the event giggling as this was a “social justice” excuse for socializing and not doing what they will spend a good many years paying for: getting an education they can later support themselves with.

HATE & EXTREMISM
We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and expose their activities to the public, the media and law enforcement.
— Southern Poverty Law Center

Today, we have liberal groups like the mostly lily-white Southern Poverty Law Center designating any group THEY choose as a “hate group” and once issued, the media, politicians, and others repeat that designation as if it has genuine validity.

Southern Poverty Law Center says 6 hate groups active in the Tri-State
Why Facebook tolerates what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls hate groups
SPLC concerned over Tampa Palms suspects’ ties to hate groups

That last piece from Tampa Palms is of note because the murder suspect killed two so-called “neo-Nazis”… because they disrespected Islam.

Exactly who is the arbiter of hate designations in the United States? Did the SPLC have to somehow qualify as to how to spot “hate” and assure their designations are 100% accurate and that partisanship is not used to politically smear one while looking the other way on a like-minded other?

Calling someone what you are is probably a formally-labeled psychological disorder. Calling someone a “hate group” is one thing but could it be a diversion from the fact the Southern Poverty Law Center is just a bleeding heart scam and has been known to have been such for many, many years?

The Progressive, 1988: Poverty Palace: How the SPLC Got Rich Fighting the Klan
The Montgomery Advertiser, 1994: Charity of Riches
Harper’s, 2000: Church of Dees
Daily Kos, 2010: Southern ‘Poverty’ Law Center’s Cayman Islands bank account

So, the next time you hear anyone or any group labeled as “hate”, ask yourselves why, who named them as such, and who could you contact if that label were issued to you?

It may be tough reaching anyone in the Caymans.

Although as is frequently the case, certain things are said to be so offensive, specifically, anything inconvenient to the pro-choice cause that every effort is taken to make it all go away.

Like this video….

YouTube, Vimeo, etc. are private businesses and can manage them however they see fit, but the case can also be made their “violation” criteria is politically selective because the CMP video didn’t appear to violate the Community Guidelines or “Terms of Service” any more than the vast majority of videos found on the platform.

We all know how many violations are committed everyday yet remain; many of these videos are monetized, yet the contents of this video is deemed inappropriate for the general public to consume.

Our stories don’t really have a place in a lot of pro-choice discourse and rhetoric, right? The heads that get stuck that we can’t get out. (laughter) The hemorrhages that we manage. You know, those are all parts of our experience. But there’s no real good place for us to share those.
— Lisa Harris, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Michigan

The fetus is a tough little object, and taking it apart, I mean, taking it apart on day one is very difficult. You go in there, and you go, “Am I getting the uterus, or the fetus? Oh good, fetus. (stabbing sound effect) What have I got? Nothing. Let’s try again.”
— Susan Robinson, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte abortionist

An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross! (laughter)
— Uta Landy, founder of Consortium of Abortion Providers

If I’m doing a procedure, and I’m seeing that I’m in fear that it’s about to come to the umbilicus (navel), I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix, and pull off a leg or two, so it’s not PBA (partial-birth abortion).
— Ann Schutt-Aine, director of abortion services, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast

Yet a music video with the chorus “Fuck Donald Trump” is acceptable by YouTube standards, 16.7 million views and counting.

But for many of us who’ve been politically aware before 2008, judges overruling the will of the people is nothing new, in fact it’s a tried-and-true, expected liberal reaction to anything they don’t like, so let’s go a few years back and you’ll see the pattern.

1994: Proposition 187

There actually came a time in the great state of California where the residents had enough of the Mexican illegal immigration-invasion, specifically the fiscal, social costs and crime ramifications taxpayers are forced to endure, and the topic was put to statewide referendum.

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum in November 1994.
— Wikipedia

Using the most direct optics as a gauge, one would think the proposition lacked support, as one mostly saw anti-187 bumper stickers everywhere. However that may have been because the few cars that did display “Yes on 187” stickers were vandalized to varying degrees. That looming threat to personal property had a visually chilling effect but it appears to also have galvanized and certified the resolve of those who were tired of living in the illegal Mexican culture.

This is NOT anecdotal. I lived in the San Fernando Valley during the 90s and witnessed this first hand.

Proposition 187 passed. The “will of the people” was heard, liberals didn’t like the result, so guess what happened? They found a judge to proudly nullify near nine million voices.

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill’s passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren. After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

Ironic considering how liberal judges in Washington state today are infringing on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

2008: Proposition 8

Prior to events in Massachusetts, EVERY state that held a referendum on gay marriage voted against it and by healthy margins. The left, however, believed the popular vote was NOT a good barometer of public sentiment that should be respected and when such a referendum was offered in California, it was time to pounce again.

Prop 8, officially titled Proposition 8 – Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, was a statewide ballot proposition in California. On November 4, 2008, voters approved the measure and made same-sex marriage illegal in California.
— Ballotpedia

There were protests, many aimed at religious institutions that campaigned for the initiative, and this could also have been the birth of public shaming now widely used by what we now call the “gaystapo”, as those who donated to groups who campaigned for the initiative were outed, and many lost jobs and businesses as a result.

Of course, all it took was a friendly liberal judge and court to overturn the will of over seven million voters.

The proposition was almost immediately challenged and ultimately overruled by the Ninth Circuit and the opinion written by a proven liberal judge who just happened to be married to the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. But we all know that had absolutely NO influence on his independence as a federal judge because liberals and their integrity are beyond reproach….

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.
— Wikipedia

By the way, blacks overwhelming voted against Prop 8 and as a result, gay racism became justified thus publicly acceptable.

In two very notable initiatives, the same liberals who decry the election of Donald J. Trump because they claim the popular vote was ignored in favor of an antiquated Electoral College, have used the courts to blow off the popular vote on numerous occasions when it didn’t go their way. Sometimes they observe the jurisdiction of the federal government and sometimes they don’t.

With that, it’s no wonder they’re freaking out. The world they’ve mandated us to live under is being torn apart, they’re technically powerless to stop it, so let’s not act like what’s going on now with the judicial obstruction to President Trump’s “extreme vetting” of refugees attempting entry into the United States is unprecedented.

The only obstruction club they have left are the judges, for now….