1957 - US NEWS & WORLD REPORT - There is No 14th Amendment - by David Lawrence - Historical Archive

               There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
                               by
                         David Lawrence
                    U.S. News & World Report
                       September 27, 1957
     A MISTAKEN  BELIEF --  that there  is a valid article in the
Constitution  known   as  the   "Fourteenth  Amendment"   --   is
responsible for  the Supreme  Court  decision  of  1954  and  the
ensuing controversy  over desegregation  in the public schools of
America.    No  such amendment was ever legally ratified by three
fourths  of   the  States   of  the  Union  as  required  by  the
Constitution itself.     The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was
dubiously  proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868.
The President  shared that  doubt.    There were 37 States in the
Union at  the time,  so ratification by at least 28 was necessary
to make  the amendment  an integral  part  of  the  Constitution.
Actually, only  21 States  legally ratified  it.  So it failed of
ratification.
     The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the
unanimous writings  of historians,  establishes these  events  as
occurring in 1867 and 1868:
     1.   Outside the  South, six  States --  New  Jersey,  Ohio,
          Kentucky, California,  Delaware and  Maryland -- failed
          to ratify the proposed amendment.
     2.   In the  South, ten States -- Texas, Arkansas, Virginia,
          North  Carolina,   South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,
          Florida, Mississippi  and Louisiana -- by formal action
          of their  legislatures, rejected  it under  the  normal
          processes of civil law.
     3.   A total  of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to
          ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
     4.   Congress --  which had  deprived the Southern States of
          their seats  in the Senate -- did not lawfully pass the
          resolution of submission in the first instance.
     5.   The Southern  States which  had rejected  the amendment
          were coerced  by a  federal statute passed in 1867 that
          took away  the right  to vote  or hold  office from all
          citizens  who  had  served  in  the  Confederate  Army.
          Military governors  were appointed  and  instructed  to
          prepare the roll of voters.  All this happened in spite
          of the  presidential proclamation of amnesty previously
          issued  by   the  President.    New  legislatures  were
          thereupon chosen  and forced  to "ratify" under penalty
          of continued  exile from  the Union.   In  Louisiana, a
          General sent  down from  the North  presided  over  the
          State legislature.
     6.   Abraham Lincoln  had declared many times that the Union
          was "inseparable"  and "indivisible."  After his death,
          and when  the war  was over,  the ratification  by  the
          Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing
          slavery, had  been accepted  as legal.  But Congress in
          the 1867  law imposed  the  specific  conditions  under
          which  the   Southern  States  would  be  "entitled  to
          representation in Congress."
     7.   Congress, in  passing the  1867 law  that declared  the
          Southern States  could not  have their  seats in either
          the Senate  or House  in the  next session  unless they
          ratified   the    "Fourteenth   Amendment,"   took   an
          unprecedented step.  No such right -- to compel a State
          by an  act  of  Congress  to  ratify  a  constitutional
          amendment  --   is  to   be  found   anywhere  in   the
          Constitution.     Nor  has  this  procedure  ever  been
          sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
     8.   President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as
          unconstitutional.  But it was passed over his veto.
     9.   Secretary of  State Seward was on the spot in July 1868
          when the  various "ratifications"  of a spurious nature
          were placed  before him.   The legislatures of Ohio and
          New Jersey  had notified  him that they rescinded their
          earlier  action  of  ratification.    He  said  in  his
          official proclamation  that he  was not  authorized  as
          Secretary of  State "to  determine and  decide doubtful
          questions as to the authenticity of the organization of
          State legislatures  or as  to the  power of  any  State
          legislature to  recall a  previous act or resolution of
          ratification."   He added  that the amendment was valid
          "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New
          Jersey, ratifying  the aforesaid  amendment, are  to be
          deemed  as   remaining  of   full  force   and  effect,
          notwithstanding  the   subsequent  resolutions  of  the
          legislatures of  these States."   This  was a  very big
          "if."  It will be noted that the real issue, therefore,
          is not  only whether  the forced  "ratification" by the
          ten  Southern   States  was  lawful,  but  whether  the
          withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey -
          - two  Northern States  -- was  legal.   The right of a
          State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind
          at  any   time  before   the  final   proclamation   of
          ratification is  issued by  the Secretary  of State has
          been confirmed  in connection with other constitutional
          amendments.
     10.  The Oregon  Legislature in October 1868 -- three months
          after the  Secretary's  proclamation  was  issued    --
          passed a  rescinding resolution,  which argued that the
          "Fourteenth Amendment"  had not  been ratified by three
          fourths of  the States  and that the "ratifications" in
          the     Southern      States     were     "usurpations,
          unconstitutional, revolutionary  and  void"  and  that,
          "until such  ratification is completed, any State has a
          right  to   withdraw  its   assent  to   any   proposed
          amendment."
     What do the historians say about all this?  The Encyclopedia
Americana states:
     "Reconstruction added  humiliation to  suffering....   Eight
     years of  crime, fraud,  and corruption  followed and it was
     State legislatures  composed of  Negroes, carpetbaggers  and
     scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified
     the amendment."
     W.  E.  Woodward,  in  his  famous  work,  "A  New  American
History?" published in 1936, says:
     "To get  a clear  idea of  the succession  of events  let us
     review [President  Andrew] Johnson's  actions in  respect to
     the ex-Confederate States.
     "In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former
     rebels.   Then he established provisional governments in all
     the  Southern   States.     They  were  instructed  to  call
     Constitutional  Conventions.     They   did.     New   State
     governments were  elected.   White men only had the suffrage
     the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had
     not yet  been passed].   Senators  and Representatives  were
     chosen, but  when they  appeared at  the opening of Congress
     they  were   refused  admission.    The  State  governments,
     however, continued to function during 1866.
     "Now we  are in  1867.   In the  early  days  of  that  year
     [Thaddeus] Stevens  brought in,  as chairman  of  the  House
     Reconstruction Committee,  a bill that proposed to sweep all
     the Southern  State governments  into the  wastebasket.  The
     South was to be put under military rule.
     "The bill passed.  It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again
     over his veto.  In the Senate it was amended in such fashion
     that any  State could  escape  from  military  rule  and  be
     restored to  its full  rights by  ratifying  the  Fourteenth
     Amendment and  admitting black  as well  as white men to the
     polls."
     In  challenging   its  constitutionality,  President  Andrew
Johnson said in his veto message:
     "I submit  to Congress  whether this  measure is  not in its
     whole character,  scope and  object  without  precedent  and
     without authority,  in palpable  conflict with  the plainest
     provisions of  the Constitution,  and utterly destructive of
     those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our
     ancestors on  both sides  of the  Atlantic have shed so much
     blood and expended so much treasure."
     Many historians  have applauded  Johnson's  words.    Samuel
Eliot  Morison   and  Henry   Steele  Commager,  known  today  as
"liberals," wrote  in their  book, "The  Growth of  the  American
Republic":
     "Johnson returned  the bill with a scorching message arguing
     the  unconstitutionality   of  the  whole  thing,  and  most
     impartial students have agreed with his reasoning."
     James Truslow  Adams, another noted historian, writes in his
"History of the United States":
     "The Supreme  Court had decided three months earlier, in the
     Milligan   case,    ...   that    military    courts    were
     unconstitutional except  under such  war conditions as might
     make the  operation of  civil  courts  impossible,  but  the
     President pointed  out in vain that practically the whole of
     the new  legislation was  unconstitutional.   ... There  was
     even talk  in Congress  of impeaching  the Supreme Court for
     its  decisions!   The  legislature  had  run  amok  and  was
     threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary."
     Actually, President  Johnson was  impeached,  but  the  move
failed by one vote in the Senate.
     The Supreme  Court, in  case after  case, refused to pass on
the illegal  activities involved  in  "ratification."    It  said
simply that  they were  acts of the "political departments of the
Government."   This,  of  course,  was  a  convenient  device  of
avoidance.   The Court  has adhered  to that  position ever since
Reconstruction Days.
     Andrew C.  McLaughlin, whose  "Constitutional History of the
United States" is a standard work, writes:
     "Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such
     by Congress,  perform  the  supreme  duty  of  ratifying  an
     amendment to  the fundamental  law? Or  does a  State --  by
     congressional thinking  -- cease  to be  a  State  for  some
     purposes but not for others?"
     This is  the tragic  history of  the  so-called  "Fourteenth
Amendment" --  a record that is a disgrace to free government and
a "government of law."
     Isn't the use of military force to override local government
what we deplored in Hungary?
     It is  never too  late to  correct injustice.  The people of
America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the
Constitution that  sets forth the right of the Federal Government
to control  education and  regulate attendance  at public schools
either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.
     That's the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem
of segregation  or integration  in the  schools.   Until such  an
amendment  is  adopted,  the  "Fourteenth  Amendment"  should  be
considered as null and void.
     There is  only one  supreme tribunal  -- it  is  the  people
themselves.   Their  sovereign  will  is  expressed  through  the
procedures set forth in the Constitution  itself.
                             [ END ]
[OCR'd text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957,
page 140 et seq.]
                   

FOREIGN BASED FACT CHECKERS for FACEBOOK EXPOSED as FRAUDS by Popular Youtuber An0maly

Recently rap recording artist #Pitbull,  in an interview revealed many of the secrets behind those who would like to control us all,  and their agenda to use

 Coronavirus as a method to implement those tactics. Being a survivor of communism from a family who escaped Castro, pitbull lead it out. He compared the agenda and the actions to achieve the same to that of Castro and he determined in a rather humorous way the Castro would have asked the question “you mean you all did that using a virus… Damn that was easy”.

Anomaly covered this video. He discussed the details and there is nothing factually inaccurate about anything either pitbull or anomaly discussed. Then came the Facebook fact checkers. Well anomaly is in the US and pitbull is in the US and Facebook is a US based corporation it seems a little strange why some French outfit is doing the fact checking and getting it all wrong. And I reached out to contact them to get them to fix their mistake. Apparently as did An0moly, they weren’t interested. These so-called fact checkers usually never seem to be interested in actually being correct. This is all ideologically-based and what used to be once a free country is what the shell and illusion of one. Please watch this video I’m also going to include the video of pitbull discussing this and event 201 by Johns Hopkins. Regardless of whether coronavirus Was created in a lab or naturally occurring it would seem to me rather funny for it to be naturally occurring considering there’s patents on it and patterning nature is illegal and also the creation of something like coronavirus would be considered bio warfare, So in any event it would appear that are not so good friend coronavirus is illegal. But the fact checkers fact check that. I’d be willing to bet that this article just because that line is left alone. Let’s see if I’m right. 

An0moly’s video exposing Facebook’s #AntifactCheckerPropagandist

RANCHER ISSUES DIRE WARNING OVER COVID AFFECT to AMERICAN FOOD SUPPLY - ALL HANDS on DECK

This was sent to me yesterday. We have reached out to this rancher for an interview. This is so alarming - and you know we don’t do fear porn here - so for me to post this you know I consider it to be a major threat to all of us if this proves to be as it seems... truth.

This link was disabled by censorship I have it working again and underneath this video there will be a Bitchute link that should work.



RANCHER WARNING BITCHUTE COPY - https://www.bitchute.com/video/eWeCfDJQYdo/

We will be covering this more in the future. 

Tom Lacovara-Stewart

RTR Truth Media

SHERIFF DENIES ENFORCEMENT of UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN CONTROL MEASURES - What about the rest of the Constitution?

I have long been a supporter of "Constitutional Sheriffs".  That being said the truth is that most all of them are still under the effects of mass mind control of authoritarianism and conditioning. The Soviet term for this is called "active measures"/ and while the Soviet Union and World Communist Movement have had a large effect on domestic policies, it truly began here from the agents of the Crown on down to corrupt power hungry political parasites. I am also in full agreement with Brian Young on this issue. As you will see in the video the good Sheriff has finally realized that unconstitutional laws are passed. The only problem is that it took the extreme case scenario of guns to wake him from his slumber. Truth be told the Federal as well as state governments have since at least the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) been enacting and enforcing UN Constitutional laws. Having to get "permission" as well as be subject to having permission revoked for traveling, fishing, hunting, how you keep your yard or the speech you stand upon to express yourself... i.e. "hate laws". We have traveled down so many slippery slopes that its hard to tell if any government ever got it right consistently. Sure there are pockets of America such as Athens Tennessee that saw veterans arming themselves to protect an election from a corrupt Sheriff. They surrounded the Sheriffs Office and filled it full of lead until they surrendered the ballot box.  Today we see creeping ommunitarianism, collectivism, and the fusion of corporate fascism and communism. The only "ism" we are supposed to have is "individualism", the greatest minority is that of one.



No victim... no crime.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

PUTIN - RUSSIA - ISRAEL - ZIONISM - BOLSHEVISM - It Came to America by Way of Deception

Adam Green in another thought provoking presentation. Please check Adam out at 

KnowMoreNews.org

TEAM RTR TRUTH MEDIA

These days do try the soul in us. 

Truth withheld, propaganda constant.

Schools fail to teach real history while pushing 

“social change”.

The theories of Karl Marx albeit failed to unite the “workers of the world”, then later grafted to marry culture and perceived “marginalized peoples” in addition to every other group which is essentially comprised of narcissistic personality disorders and people who believe that they are a girl when born male, and that this is perfectly ok for them not only to delude themselves but believe they have the right to force everyone else to share their delusion. 

Our world is being socially, and intentionally altered. It’s being turned into a circus side show and mostly everyone is just watching the ship go down down down and laughing oblivious that they are about to drown. Absolutely INSANE.  

YOU CANT STOP PROGRESS - The Ongoing Video Evidence Collection of a Civilization in the Grip of Cultural Marxist / Collectivist Ideological Subversion

Americans seem all too oblivious, especially those kept by the cult of statism and the two party “left - right paradigm. When in FACT, anyone who has at any point been on one of those two “allegedly” home teams, are simply at this point deluding themselves. It is no secret that I share Conservative values. But I stop short at protecting Donald “Red Flag” Trump who said as serious as a heart attack that he thought that taking the guns first, worrying about due process second. 

WHAT?

Then add to that already Constitution Violating, no but wait.... 

... Constitution MURDERING Political Parasites, yes, I do believe that to be most appropriate ! 

who tell all of the people who have already been fed mental subversion infection in a serious crap pie 

we sure have been served...

If this presentation is indicative of the future we find ourselves in a fusion between the Movie Idiocracy and George Orewell’s 1984

From the Bolsheviks to the NASDAP National Socialists to modern day America a sort of hybrid of the both in the form of Communitarianism. Keeping people confused and their minds controlled the state rolls on. In fact in many cases actually sanctions the normalization of the obscene, the promotion of the vile as choice the same thing they use to call the homicide of the unborn...    choice. 

May the Almighty give us a chance to

Resurrect the Republic - Moral Natural Law

No Standing Armies but a Navy that can protect the many sovereign independent nation states entered into a Union Compact, not a country. The United States INC. in modern times bears no resemblance to the code of honor or pursuit of freedom. Freedom from the destruction of the spirit of mankind that subverts entire generations.

 

WATCH BETO O’ROURKE COMMIT OPEN TREASON ACCORDING TO the ORIGINAL INTENT of NATURAL RIGHTS PROTECTED by the 2nd Amendment

The misinformation I hear most from both sides of the right left false political paradigm both right and left, is discussion of what many call “our 2nd Amendment Rights”. I am here to inform you, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! 

LISTEN TO THE LATEST EPISODE of RTR Truth Media’s Resurrect the Republic Radio Show on the Republic Broadcasting Network by clicking - 

LISTEN to RTR RadioLISTEN to RTR Radio

The right to keep and bear arms, is an inherent right. This is a natural right, and one our founders declared was one that pre-existed the creation or the authority of any legitimate Republic or government that claims to exist to preserve individual liberty. Our Founders reversed  Monarchial sovereignty. Sovereignty was vested within the individual. Prior to the founding of our states, the King of England was considered the “sovereign”.  Each state, it’s own nation, retained authority granted to it by its people, and in a confederation all sovereign states agreed to enter into a union to provide for the common defense of America from any nation that would attempt to rise above any individual state within, or against all together. This was an arrangement that provided for mutual defense. It provided for the protection of our borders. But where the propagandists often try and indoctrinate new generations is that of the authority of government itself in relation to and even in the understanding of the 2nd Amendment. 

We will hear them call the right to keep and bear arms “2nd Amendment Rights” because of a long standing agenda to make people believe that the government created and thus granted to the public this right. If that were so, it would not have ever been called a right in 1789, but a privilege. This is something that most people do not know about “rights” 

NO LEGITIMATE FREE COUNTRY GRANTS NATURAL RIGHTS

NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST BY THE GRACE of GOD

or if you prefer, that which is retained via our very humanity. 

The people together as sovereigns had no more authority collectively to alter, abolish or change these inherent rights than the government. So again, while these politicians continue to try and raise numbers and use false statistics to claim that the “majority” of people want this or that, the real deception, often spoken directly is that the united States is a democracy, which would be essentially mob rule. It is not rightfully any such thing. It is a democratically elected Constitutional Republic with the base Supreme Law being the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. The difference is stark. No matter what the public can be duped into believing, no matter what they can be convinced should be demanded, any action MUST comport with the Constitution first and foremost. And if it does not it is a dead issue. We are constantly lied to about the American “democracy”. This has been and continues to be a primary goal of the world Communist movement. This is what many Socialists on both the right and left want you to believe we have, and let me assure you the ones on the right are even more dangerous than those on the left because they present themselves as being opposed to these socialistic / communistic policies. But if you look very closely and apply the same criteria you would to Communists, you will see that NeoConservatism especially is for corporate welfare, and foreign redistribution of wealth. This redistribution however funds foreign nations and globalism. It also funds the overthrow of foreign governments via terrorist and revolutionary fronts.  We have seen this in Iraq, Libya, and remember the Contras? 

The reason I bring this all up when discussing the subversion that has gone on in relation to redefining long understood Constitutional tenets, is because many can not see those within their own flavor of political ideology who have been engaged in this. Both parties have moved to increasing authoritarian measures, and they have done so with the help of the people who for the most part are oblivious. 

Here is an example of this hypocrisy at work.

One of the oldest and most traditional aspects of Constitutional Conservatism is private property rights, and as small a central government as possible which does not interfere with individuals right to enjoy said property. 

So now look at Palestine. Most conservatives have been programmed to stand with Israel. We are told that the founding of this corporate state that chose to name itself after the Biblical entire 12 tribes that are descendents of Abraham, the principal figure whose God is the one true God of the universe, the Creator of all is the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. But it is only that of those of a very certain religion, ignoring an entire New Testament. This has lead to conservatives not only condoning, but funding and supporting the theft of private property, and the violation of human rights that has even been made clear by breaking international law agreed to by the majority of civilized nations. This support that has stolen and also continues to steal private property from Palestinian Christians as well. How can Christians who purport to stand by the Supreme Law of their God, as well as the fundamentals of the preservation and protection of individual private property rights, depart from all of which their religion and their purported political ideological views stand upon? When one sees the subversion by placing it next to its own traditions, while assessing what it purports to stand for comparing it to what it has rejected how can anyone who claims to be a conservative accept this? 

      Do you see? That is how subversion is accomplished. By indoctrination, and call to emotion, one small slip at a time we have been trained to violate everything that we were supposed to stand for. And the endgame rests upon the armed public. Make no mistake. The tyrant gun grabbers are here, they are bold, and they are unafraid as We The People have continuously failed to do all tbat was necessary to keep government in check. Now we have agencies of government calling the planning of doing so “domestic terrorism”. 

Our right to take up arms, even against the government if need be is such a well understood right and according to the Declaration of Independence it is even more than that. It is our duty. They are, and have been indoctrinating the public to believe that doing all of the things necessary to prevent a criminal government is in itself criminal. 

LISTEN to RTR Radio on the Republic Broadcasting Network 

You know, it’s rather funny but in a way not, that lately any seeming political baseless witch hunt is compared to Senator Joe McCarthy’s attempt to root out Communists in America to avoid much of what we are seeing now. Personally there are a few things I would personally have done differently. For one, I would have approached the situation with a public presentation that showed how many of those who have been indoctrinated by Marxism / Communism, etc, are in fact victims of what is known as “active measures” which is a style of psychological manipulation also referred to as “ideological subversion”.  I would have made it clear that the public must be made to understand that this is in every way a form of mind control which the Soviet Union focused on above all else. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not a victory for anyone or anything but world Communism itself. People are conditioned to view the world with the lens of nation states, black and white, win or lose. This is a seriously oversimplified way to see the world. The Soviet Union reformed because the mission it set out to do had been accomplished. Communism had successfully been rebranded and spread all over the West, and especially the United States, and it had seen the creation of a state dead center of the old Silk Road, and via an assumed identity that gave its agents more cover and protection than any other Marxist collective had ever achieved. The smear homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc was NOTHING compared to the label called “antisemitism”. The world Communist Movement through the Soviet Union has achieved the most brilliant accomplishment that anyone could have ever imagined. As 80% of those who identified as Jewish flooding into Palestine were in fact Bolshevik Communists. The CIA knew this. The Arabs were screaming for help and trying to tell people that they were being invaded by Communists and President Truman, being fully informed of these facts deliberately withheld this information from the public , less they might begin attacking all Jews everywhere. Part of the brilliance of this use of Jewish identity was the use of Holocaust sympathy combined with a global public relations campaign that would have anyone who criticized Jews, regardless of the validity or danger of the claim, and torpedoed the truth with this Marxist propaganda that destroys 1st Amendment protections. Along with comparing anyone engaged in said criticism with Hitler and the Gestapo. All the while a very real gestapo/STASI was being planned to be implemented in the US. It is known as the US Department of Homeland Security. Not only can it be compared to the STASI, but Bolshevik NeoCon Zionist Micheal Chertoff  employed Marcus Wolfe the former head of the Soviet East German STASI and others to consult in the creation of the DHS. This should at this point, solidly have your attention.    

Sharing the truth of this information directly places my life at risk. This is no exaggeration. Just today I revived a text message from someone within the state that I live. A number I do not know assigned to a cell phone of someone who had no clue about the message that not only informed me that they knew specific very personal information regarding my current routine, but that they “were coming for me”.

Now I know that the information I share with all of you is the truth, but apparently I have some folks seriously worried about it. I never personally attack or threaten anyone. I have no actual personal “enemies” in daily life. There is only one probable explanation for such a threat by someone who has specific detailed intimate knowledge of my life. And that is :

EXPOSING THE CRIMES, and the CRIMINALS behind them. 

There was no way for anyone who is not a part of my daily life to know that not only did I retrieve my Harley Davidson, (something many people know) but that I have not had it out for a ride in the 2 months it has been with me here. No one could have known that detail but someone who has been close enough to be engaged in surveillance of my home. I take this threat far more serious because of my wife and the good friends who live in a separate house on the property here. Response time for the Sheriff’s Dept would be beneficial to take a report and collect the bodies. And since the Federal Government sees me as some kind of right wing domestic terror threat (who has stopped 3 robberies, saved lives as a firefighter for years and who has never harmed anyone - ever) and they have seen fit to issue a cruel and unusual punishment for life. A life sentence of being a second class citizen, whose life is of lesser value than those the state has not deemed equivalent to others. While the government continues to pass laws granting collectivist groups special rights and privileges, my natural God given rights have been curtailed. As I sit in the desert on my porch, watching the glow of the moon, I ask myself... “self”, (as I am now talking to no one but me) self, does any corporation, body politic, collective, presumed alleged authority, or any political parasites have the authority to make a law that nullifies one’s ability to perform a duty one owes to the Republic? When one is directly engaged in a mission to accomplish what the Declaration of Independence provides for as remedy to a corrupt entity we call our government? 

And furthermore, as a member of the press, and needing one’s life to be able to accomplish the task of publishing information, does not the 1st Amendment directly apply? 

Think about it. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So let us for a moment consider what free exercise means, beginning with the definition of “freedom” itself.

freedom

 noun

free·​dom |  \ ˈfrē-dəm   \

Definition of freedom

1: the quality or state of being free: such as

a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE

c: the quality or state of being exemptor released usually from something onerous freedom from care

d: unrestricted use gave him the freedom of their home

e: EASE, FACILITYspoke the language with freedom

f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken answered with freedom

g: improper familiarity

h: boldness of conception or execution

2a: a political right

So, if someone is threatening the life, safety or well being of  a member of the press, and as a result that of his family, I would consider that coercion to force silence, as well as retribution for producing, publishing and expressing news, analysis, truth and facts. And according to the 1st Amendment Congress is not permitted to write or enforce a law that would abridge it. 

The moment this individual threatened my life, he altered the  nature of my work. Without the ability to adequately defend myself, I would need to cease my work, and relocate to an undisclosed location. The relocation would be no guarantee as I am obviously being surveilled. Without any idea of whom is doing so, with the amount of property and with a camper trailer in tow, it is highly unlikely that I would be able to relocate while also eluding someone attempting to tail me.

Furthermore, as we all know the Supreme Court of the united States has repeatedly ruled that corporate law enforcement (the police) have absolutely NO DUTY and NO OBLIGATION to protect any of us non governmental personnel unless we are in their legal custody. Their duty according to SCOTUS is to protect the corporation and the assets and representatives of the corporation A.K.A. The US, and any and all subsidiaries and to enforce “the law”. Amazing that out of all the so called “Acts of Congress” not one of them ever introduced the “Duty to Protect Act”. We have seen the result of this in Parkland Florida. And while the government claims that the police need “more tools” to accomplish protecting the public which is not their job, the one law that could likely vastly improve this problem, the fact is that if government foot soldiers have no duty to protect us, then that responsibility falls upon us. 

So while under normal circumstances I would be able to protect myself, circumstances have changed. There is a direct threat upon my life now as a member of the press. 

I can not afford armed security.

    And no law shall be made or to be held valid to abridge the freedom of the press. Therefore any law, rule, policy, or mandate that prevents me from protecting my ability to do my job, one being the ability to breathe, another the ability to accomplish my tasks without the fear and intimidation or coercion, is null and void, not applicable under the current circumstances. 

So I have a question for the individual or group who chose to level that threat against me. 

How do you think I interpret the Constitution regarding my right to keep and bare arms to protect the free exercise of “the press”?    Nothing will stop me from performing my duties as a representative of the free press. 

In my life, I have never harmed another individual, nor do I intend to start now. I disagree with a lot of people. That does not mean that I believe I have any right to forcefully prevent them from expressing themselves or in any way violate their unalienable rights. Of course this does not include actions that directly threaten the rights or lives of others.