Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts

Sunday, April 4, 2021

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.]

Thursday, February 25, 2021

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


Monday, May 18, 2020

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



Tuesday, February 4, 2020

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.

Thursday, November 7, 2019

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 










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.  






Sunday, November 3, 2019

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.
 






















Saturday, September 14, 2019

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 - 
RTR Radio w/ Tom Lacovara-Stewart, Chris Switzer and Rachel Tobias



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 |  \ ËˆfrÄ“-dÉ™m   \

Definition of freedom

1: the quality or state of being free: such as
athe absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
bliberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another INDEPENDENCE
cthe quality or state of being exemptor released usually from something onerous freedom from care
dunrestricted use gave him the freedom of their home
eEASEFACILITYspoke the language with freedom
fthe quality of being frank, open, or outspoken answered with freedom
gimproper familiarity
hboldness of conception or execution
2aa 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.