24 thoughts on “The Word From the Trenches – October 1, 2018

  1. 71 now, 72 hi, 54 lo.. Overcast, gloomy.

    Took too long doing the cancer cure this morning… got back late.

  2. Thank you, Henry. Your reporting today on Israel occupying us was/is so disturbing and enraging. It’s gotten so much more blatant. They’re so emboldened that they feel they no longer need to hide.

    I just sent in an article on a SF fair highlighting fetishes. It made me see that while we are in the fight of our lives, still much of the populace lives out its victimhood, demonstrating how Jewish social engineering has distracted them into subservience.

    I and furious and frightened. I will NOT be owned by Israel!!


      1. What the f#@k do you mean you can’t prove it?
        The Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution. The Constitution is breached to the point of non-existence. The power reverts back to the states who have breached the state contracts through violations of the Bill of Rights. That means the power reverts back to the people and the original Bill of Rights as ratified and agreed upon in the Constitution.
        I guess maybe we should take it to the twelve. Either way, the facts remain the same.

    1. There were 12 articles when it was first constructed. The 10 Articles that are our Bill of Rights is what was ratified, meaning the first two were removed before ratification.

      1. Henry, he’s looking for proof, documentation to prove that the 1st amendment to the constitution is the Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights are not amendments.

      2. The Bill of Rights as it was settled upon before being attached to the Constitution is a single body of law consisting of 10 Articles, each article depending upon the existence of the other articles to complete a system of law that cannot be broken.
        No matter how they try to attach it, the 9th Article remains the 9th Article to the Bill of Rights as adopted.
        I’m finding it very difficult to find the old copies of the documents to look at. They have all been transcribed. Winston Chee and the censors are at work and the books have been removed from the libraries and burned.
        The rights are in articles that cannot be broken and they make complete logical sense.
        The 14th Amendment was created in direct violation of the 9th Article.
        Again, the Bill of Rights is a separate document that cannot be changed through presentation in a contract. Even if you want to call it the 9th Amendment in a contract, it still states that no power can be created by the Constitution to deny or disparage the rights retained by the people, it is still the 9th Article as adopted. And by dictate of that 9th Article you can’t call them Amendments and pretend an authority in the Constitution that can touch them.

        1. “I’m finding it very difficult to find the old copies of the documents to look at.”

          I need to be able to show proof that the Articles in the BoR are NOT amendments, Henry. That is the whole argument. But EVERY site is calling them amendments (except for the link I posted which also says it’s the 4th Article, not the 2nd, that deals with the right to bear arms, but then goes right on to calling them amendments afterwards anyway).

          1. Look at it like this. You are holding that Bill of Rights with 12 Articles on it in your left hand. When it was ratified as the law of this land, two of the articles had been removed. Now here is the question. If the 9th Article is not an article by law, by what authority in the Constitution can the 9th Amendment be removed? And if you want to say that the Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments, according to the 9th Amendment, by what authority in the Constitution can any of them be removed?
            I have always asked the question, when were the articles made amendments? If it was indeed when it was attached to the Constitution, the Articles still were presented as Articles, just like the big screen projector copy my 4th grade teacher showed me.
            When Article the 9 was adopted to the Constitution, it most certainly amended the Constitution, but as the 9th Article to the Bill of Rights, it declared no authority could exist in the Constitution or no authority could be interpreted in the Constitution to amend it in any way. Otherwise, what was the use in adding the Bill of Rights? It wasn’t a permission being granted, it was rights being declared, as a superior power above the Constitution. They cannot be amendments quite simply because they cannot be amended in any way, not so much as a comma or a period.
            Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, not one word nor comma has been changed in any of the 10 Articles.
            The Volstead Act, the 21st Amendment, was repealed by an amendment. Completely removed.
            The 9th Article to the Bill of Rights is an Article because it cannot be amended, like an amendment can, because it is an Article.
            The joinder of the Bill of Rights, as I’ve said many times, was the joinder of a contract between we the people, that is an agreement laid out in Articles of absolute law. It was about the authority of the people. The Constitution was a contract for limited government authority. What limited it? The Bill of Rights.
            The founders knew that two contracts with opposite intentions cannot coexist, as one must have authority over the other, as one is the property of the other.
            When the people’s law was handed to the masons that created the Constitution, it was in Articles and under the people’s jurisdiction, hence the common law. When it was ratified and adopted to the Constitution, it was accepted as superior law because the people delegated the authority and the separation of jurisdiction is quite clear.
            When you are over in government world, in admiralty jurisdiction, you can call them Amendments or cottage cheese, I really don’t care. They are still the assertion of the people’s authority over their servants in the government.
            Here in our world, they are still the Articles of our Bill of Rights in a separate jurisdiction and when we assert them, we assert them as Articles from the superior jurisdiction. And when the document was ratified with the 10 Articles, it was accepted as the superior authority.
            What is the argument here? That the government somehow had an authority to alter that which had not even become a part of it yet, by accepting the 10 Articles as the superior law?
            I don’t care how they wrote it down. The jurisdiction are clearly separated in the 5th Article.
            I am an individual freeman sovereign national. I am not in active militia during time of war. I live in the world of the common law, the superior law, the law of the people that granted the tiny authority for the government to serve them. In the common law jurisdiction, the Bill of Rights are Articles.
            In the admiralty courts created by the illegal misuse of the admiralty jurisdiction granted the government servants to hold the militia in discipline in time of defense of this nation, they can call them Amendments or whatever they want. They are apart from us. That is why they have to go to their private capacity to get into the common law court where they are not Amendments, but are absolute Articles of law.
            I don’t give a f#@k how they were attached to the admiralty document, as ratified and proofed by the 9th Article, they remain a separate jurisdiction as the Articles of the Bill of Rights, as adopted and agreed upon by our servants in the admiralty.
            Now prove to me that this is not correct or shut your mouth now.

          2. “Now prove to me that this is not correct…”

            I’ve never said otherwise.

            All I’m saying is that if I can’t provide concrete evidence to prove to someone else that they’re Articles, and not amendments, then I’m out $20.


          3. You already have the proof. The Bill of Rights you showed me. It is written in Articles, isn’t it?
            In this case, the 11th Article says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
            This means the writing down in that constitution, which the Bill of Rights was addressing, because the Constitution had been there for many years already, of any rights or authority, shall not be construed, that is shall not be interpreted as to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
            Now this was adopted as the 9th Article and by its essence says that no authority can exist to diminish the 9th Article or any of the other rights enumerated as Articles in the Bill of Rights.
            They can call them Amendments but they just are not. They have to be Articles because the 9th Article, as adopted, says that no authority in the Constitution can exist to diminish them or change them in any way. That includes calling them Amendments. There could be no authority to diminish the Articles by calling them Amendments.
            This is just pure logic and I can’t believe I am still sitting here explaining it. They are Articles because the 9th Article as adopted says they can be nothing else.
            The document proving it is the one you showed me. Now tell the guy to give you your $20.

          4. And if he doesn’t give you the twenty, explain to him how the second article works. 🙂

          5. Thank you, Henry. Your 2nd explanation was crystal clear… it’s what I’m going to read to the guy, and then challenge HIM to prove otherwise.

            There was another reason I was so pissed about it, but not now.

  3. Petro dollar; 3.00 per hr., .60 per gal. gas = 5 gal. gas. (1970’s calculation) 16.00 per hr., 3.00 something per gal. gas = 5 gal. gas. (2018 calculation)

    Broken down like you did Henry, this is absolutely alarming. Can’t get this comparison out of mind.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.