Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Bailout of the Banks: Subversion, Titles of Nobility and Treason

By       Message Allen Heart     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Author 13895
- Advertisement -

During the early decades of US history, relations between the United States and Great Britain were strained. This relationship became worse with the outbreak of war against Napoleon in 1803. Britain imposed a blockade on neutral countries such as the United States. In addition, the British took American sailors from their ships and forced them to serve in the British Navy. Concerned about the many English spies and troublemakers, Congress finally passed an amendment to prevent those who had English titles and connections from obtaining any seat in government.  Called the Titles of Nobility Act (TONA), it reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
All "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778), but there was no penalty.  Although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was deemed necessary. Such an amendment was first proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and finally ratified in 1819 and printed in the official Laws Code of Virginia, the final state to ratify. Esquires in government played dumb and finally censored the TONA out of the law books. There still is no penalty for accepting titles or emoluments from foreign rulers today, just the prohibition.


Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honours," that anyone receiving them would be required to forfeit their citizenship.  Obviously the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today. They knew that our freedom could be subverted from inside our government and had sought to prevent such a bitter betrayal. Today most Senators and Congressmen, all Federal judges, and some of our Presidents are attorneys who carry the title "Esquire" often abbreviated as "Esq." The Constitution still forbids this but they continue to sit in the seats of power, nevertheless.

In Colonial times, attorneys trained attorneys, but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor."  There was no requirement that one become 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 and 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.  Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" - a "title of British nobility."

"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!  Lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

The archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another."  An example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge:  Esquires can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers, non-esquires generally cannot. We address the judge as, "your Honor."

By prohibiting "honors," the missing, but newly found, original 13th amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power.  Therefore, the second meaning of the original 13th Amendment was to insure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

Both "esquire" and "honor" would be key targets of the 13th Amendment even today, because, while "titles of nobility" no longer apply now precisely as they did back in the early 1800's, it is clear that an "esquire" or bar attorney receives far better treatment in and by the courts as well as by the public at large in general, whereas if you represent yourself (pro se) or speak as a freeman (pro per), you are treated as though you were rabble. Your opinions are of little importance in court and you are often treated the same way by government officials. The concept of "honor" remains relevant, possibly more so today than at any previous time in U.S. history, for they, the "honors," are greatly feared and even revered, even by the esquires who are considered to be below them. Since the Original 13th Amendment was properly ratified by the states and has never been repealed, all acts of government since 1819 are technically null and void since most lawmakers, prohibited from participation in government by the Constitution and who should even be stripped of their right to be a US Citizen under TONA, have continued to interject themselves into the political process.

- Advertisement -

When the people discovered that European banking interests owned most of the United States Bank they saw the sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery. On February 20, 1811, Congress therefore refused to renew the Bank's charter on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional.  Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, issued a fierce ultimatum: "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." That apparently was the warning given the Senate on October 1, 2008.

In 1811, this led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie (money in coin) by European investors which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. This "war" was punishment for America refusing to do business on the terms of the International Banking families of the House of Rothschild, through the first Bank of the United States. Congress refused to let the National Bank renew its Charter.  The equivalent bank today is the Federal Reserve System.

Except for Gen. Andrew Jackson's victory in the Battle of New Orleans, the War of 1812 produced a string of American military disasters. During the War of 1812 our national archives and many libraries and document repositories were burned and some of the evidence of the TONA disappeared. Nevertheless, the legislature of Virginia ratified the amendment and it was subsequently printed in many official publications as the 13th Amendment, even in states which had NOT ratified, such as Connecticut.  But beginning in 1832 it began to disappear from texts, although official state publications continued to publish it as late as 1876.

One amazing aspect of the War of 1812 was the existence of a depression during wartime. War always brings a short-term prosperity, except in the case of this war. To be clear about this, all depressions and recessions are created through the intentional restriction of money. In 1816 the chaotic government finance during the war and the post war recession convinced the Republican government under James Madison, to recharter the second Bank of the United States. 

On January 9, 1832 The Second National Bank applied for a charter renewal 4 years early. This time President Andrew Jackson vetoed the Bank's request on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional and he successfully paid off the national debt leaving the U.S. with a surplus of $5,000. He said, "If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

- Advertisement -

On January 30, 1835, as President Andrew Jackson left a funeral in the Capitol building, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter, pointed a pistol at Jackson and fired, but the bullet did not discharge. Jackson raised his cane to strike his attacker, who fired again. The second weapon also misfired. Jackson was convinced that Lawrence was hired by his political enemies, to stop his plan to eliminate the Bank of the United States.  After his acquittal on grounds of insanity, Lawrence bragged to his friends that he had been asked by unnamed Europeans to kill Jackson and that they would protect him afterwards.

In the first week of October 2008, the Senate of the United States amended and passed an appropriations bill that had been defeated in the House of Representatives. Any and all money bills MUST start in the House according to the Constitution. A failed bill cannot be amended, but the Senate acted in violation of the Constitution. Subsequently the House took up consideration of the Senate Bank Bailout bill. In the clamor of the day Congressmen and Congresswomen reported threats of martial law and horrible consequences that creditor nations might visit upon the US and upon their families if the bill would not pass. These threats and the trainload of incentives thrown hastily into the bill won its approval against a storm of citizen protest.

According to a Congressional Research Services Report that breaks out members of Congress by profession, at the beginning of the 110th Congress, 215 Members (159 Representatives, 58 Senators) list their occupation as law. Did our forefathers know something about BAR attorneys that has been lost through the years?

Next Page  1  |  2


View Ratings | Rate It

My life came to a watershed in 1988 when I was forced to either teach what was in the selected history text or end my teaching career. I couldn't lie to my students so I ended my teaching career. Today, through my websites, I teach thousands each (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Mumbai False Flag Attack: Gathering Evidence

Origins of Violence: Climate Change in the Sahara 7,000 Years Ago

Christopher Columbus, Marrano and Mariner

9/11 Bailout: They hate us for our freedoms!

Naked Short Selling and Phantom Stock by Criminals in the Financial Markets

Westpac Letters Exposed Australia's Worst Case of Corporate Crime

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2016, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum