Freedomwriter.com Logo
Eagle

Headline News

America
FOR CURRENT NEWS & COMMENTARY IN BETWEEN ISSUES, PLEASE CHECK EACH ALASKAN LINK
IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND COLUMN OR VIEW THE GUEST FORUM SECTION THRU

FREEDOMWRITER'S IKONBOARD.
About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home

AMERICA LINKS


Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.

WILL HOMELAND OBSCURITY JAIL US FOR NOTICING WHAT'S IN FRONT OF OUR EYES? - CATS AND THE DICTIONARY CONSPIRACY

Joseph Rorie
Dec. 2005

If you will recall the setting: all kinds of cats just "hanging around," purring to share their origins – and from which bag they had been loosed – with anyone that would listen. Let’s continue the story from there. Well, we were hearing one at length that had emerged from a bag labeled "The Fourteenth Amendment," a cat putting us wise to numerous inconsistencies in the Supreme Court’s rulings, its many different interpretations of that "amendment" and how it has hurt our system so badly that the old moral judgements have been crossed out and replaced with new forms, natural rights having fallen from the top of that fence down to the bottom while civil rights sit up there yowling.

We were interested enough in what this cat had to say about all the abuses of the "14th Amendment" and how there seems to be no correct way to apply it with the same moral judgements we used before it was ratified, or as we thought at the time that it was a ratified amendment, when out of nowhere this other cat came along and laid before us the bigger revelation that the so-called amendment had never even been ratified! So I will pick up from that point.

If you remember, I told you that the cat had paused only long enough to say his piece and then dashed away. Well, what happened was: the detective and I were so flabbergasted with this news, we dropped everything "then and there" and tried to catch that cat. But it was gone, as if with tin cans tied on its tail. So we decided to split up; only one of us would pursue it and the other stay back and see if any of the cats still lolling and licking their paws around here might know anything about him.

Since I’m no detective, I suggested that private investigator Felix run down the fleeing cat and I would stay, purr and rub up against these other cats to get whatever information I can out of them. It turns out that, because of this arrangement, I now have a lot more to report to you. So, while detective Felix runs down the cat with that evidence on how the "14th Amendment" is an illegal immigrant, we will find out something about this cunning one that has been snuggling warm and cozy among our true constitutional amendments.

Whoa! Talk about lying down with the enemy, can you imagine resting anywhere near that "amendment"? Not me. I moved several clauses back; as a matter of fact, to the 5th Amendment, and just made my bed there. Meantime, we should all approach the "14th amendment" like it were a puffed adder – alone from what we have received from these cats here. If you can, be sure to trace down the book that the fleeing cat had mentioned, by Charles Wallace Collins, The fourteenth Amendment and the States, published in 1912.

That was a very enlightening experience, with what I had found out in general about this place, and then the many revelations these cats had to expose – which, I assure you, I shall share with you.

The first feline I approached knew what I was after, I guess by the expression on my face and seeing as how I had just tried to run down one of those "14th Amendment" cats. Here I learned that the witness having fled with the 14th Amendment story had to be constantly on the run because of so many intermediaries everywhere trying to re-bag him. There is a good chance I may never see that one again because they have an ADB (All Dogs Bulletin) out for him.

About this time there were as many as 12 to 15 cats surrounding me and going "catatonic" – wanting to tell their stories about the bags they were let out of. After I had got their meows down to a purr so I could give each one a chance to tell why it had been bagged in the first place, and since Mr. Felix may be weeks or even months getting that "14th amendment" cat back here, I should have time to hear all of their tales. I noticed one very pretty calico cat that was a little over to the side and not so much with the group. I asked what was his story and why he is not over here in the crowd.

One of the Persians said, "We call him Doubtful Dell because he’s a conspiracy theorist and does not always fall on his feet. Boy, does he have some stories that will make you think, though. And a lot of what he has to say sounds good, possible even, but then he seldom offers enough proof to convince us alley cats. Granted, many of his stories are backed up with a very large amount of substantial evidence that some do find convincing."

"So, his real name is Dell?" I asked.

The reply: "When he first showed up here we learned his name was Morris, and he had come from a farm."

Morris? Now, that is so unusual these days. This to myself: "Perhaps he is a plant!?" The cat asked if I remembered the Farmer in the Dell. I was going to say that I had never been a farmer nor visited a dell, but thought… maybe I should just play this one out and keep the cool cat image I have already established with them. So I said, sure, his wife’s name is Lisa and they have that local salesman Mr. Haney that comes around a lot huh?

I got the ole eye brow from him a little but he went on and said, "Well, about Dell: to hear his side of the story there was much more to why he was taken by the dog than what we were all told. According to Dell It was a setup by the cow. As you recall, the cow took the dog that in turn took the cat. Anyway, the cow supposedly set him up because Dell knew the former was a beef cow just impersonating a milk cow so as to avoid the butcher, hence the chorus, ‘Hi-Ho, the Dairy-O.’ According to Dell, he figured the cow needed to get him out of the way – reasoning that if there were no cat around then there could be no cat to let out of the bag. He also pointed out that the cow had a choice of over 30 breeds of small dogs present to choose from, and he selects the most vicious German Shepherd ‘standing the furthest away,’ and one that instantaneously began chasing him.

"All of us cats know there’s a certain amount of bull in any cow story" he sniggers.

"Then," I asked "Why he is allowed to hang around with this group if his story has holes in it? For one, everyone knows that cows are unable to co-conspire. At least on this side of the moon."

Replied the Persian, "We let him stay among us because he is reasonably honest and will always spill the beans. He is educatable and has come a ways. besides, this is a haven for all cats that have been let out of the bag regardless of the weight and value of their stories. We are in the process of upgrading the shop so as to only attract the more elite and most sought after cats. Oh, and you can also ignore ‘Xerox Willy’ over there; he’s just another copy cat. Not a whole lot we can do with him."

Okay, so now we know there are some important cats and others less significant, even if they all have been let out of the bag. Let’s waste no more time on Dell and get to this meaningful specimen I spotted among the company.

So many cats there, and each of them with a very big story to tell! Unfortunately, mostly they’re products of the suburbs and far from the momentous information we need at this time – like Doubting Dell, for instance. But you’d still be surprised how some of these subtle ones get around. Just then the idea flashed to me: "If only we had Socks here, that White House cat could tell us quite a bit."

I will let you know that, looking over among these colorful critters, I noticed one carrying on his back two very large leather books, ancient-looking and with some of the leather missing – the chipping and cracking of age, probably. So I asked the other kitties, if they didn’t mind, to let me inquire of him about that double burden on his back. They all agreed, but hissed under their whiskers a little at not being chosen first; so, I thought, well how about if I treat you all to some salmon while we hear his story? MEOW! they exclaimed in chorus. So I ordered the required amount of salmon for them, and the mesquite-grilled trout for myself. "Be sure to lick your paws before you eat," I reminded them.

"Okay, Kitty," I said to the heavy-laden one. "Let’s hear about those two books and what information you have."

He told me that the pair of volumes were dictionaries, one printed in 1863 and the other 1864. The reason he keeps them both handy at all times is because people want proof. "They are not just going to believe my story without the evidence."

I thought to myself, "They do?"

Maybe I’m from the wrong area; I’ve found many people to be gullible. As my expression again gave me away, he read my mind, and stated, "No one is going to believe that a professional lexicographer would purposely falsify the definition of words, especially if that news comes from a cat just let out of the bag."

"You do have a point," I observed.

"Some of these words," he continued, "have been arrested right out of common usage and detained without counsel into the ‘archaic’ vault by iconoclastic sophists, to be replaced at their whims with captious and fallacious utterances. Thereafter, the ‘disappeared ones’ aren’t heard from again in public discourse."

"Hmm!" I thought to myself. (Well, of course to myself, I’m not going to think out loud and have this cat imagine that he’s speaking over my head. Shall I admit the learned one speaks better English than I?)

He proceeds to lay out both dictionaries and begins walking me through them. In no time at all, after examining some very key words and discerning his cat tale to be true, I flip to the fronts of the two volumes to see who would’ve done this; for, no way could I believe that such was by a legitimate staff of lexicographers.

Webster’s!? No. No! They are the most trusted authority known to the American people! Looking at just a few more words I became speechless – fanatically gesturing, pointing to my mouth beckoning to know which one of those cats had got my tongue. I was glad they understood sign language even if not the official version; more like panic reading. Having regained my speech, I reprimanded the guilty scudder and told him he might benefit by learning the many ways I can skin a cat if he will not do that again.

I now move to expound on what I’ve discovered, and enter into evidence these two dictionaries. To begin with, words are very important in describing government; for instance, the definitions of Federal, Confederation, State, E Pluribus Unum, Congress, Alliance, Democracy and Union to speak of only a few. I will first brief you on each one, then select just a few quotes directly from the two dictionaries by way of comparison.

Federal was changed from denoting a confederacy to acquire a national meaning, Confederation remaining the same except for the second part: "The United States are sometimes called the Confederation." Hmm! Wonder why they left that out?

State was changed from an Independent Political body to a national dependent (and later editions further reduced the states down to nothing but "territorial units").

E Pluribus Unum (our motto) was changed from "One composed of many… many States confederated" to "One government formed of many States."

Congress was changed from "The assembly of the Delegates of the Several States" to "The assembly of senators and representatives of the people of a nation."

Alliance remained otherwise the same, but struck out had been that part stating, "A confederacy."

Democracy was changed to mean the same as "a Republic," and

Union had acquired a new meaning, no longer "States United" but a consolidated, single body.

Now for the quotes.

Congress [from Webster’s 1844 edition (Retained until 1864)]:The assembly of delegates of the several British colonies in America, which united to resist the claims of Great Britain in 1774, and which, in 1776, declared the colonies independent. 3. The Assembly of the delegates of the several United States, after the declaration of independence, and until the adaption of the present constitution, and the organization of the government in 1789. During these periods, the congress consisted of one house only. 4. The assembly of senators and representatives of the United States of America, according to the present constitution or political compact, by which they are united in a "federal" republic; ["federal" meaning a confederacy; see below] the legislature of the United states consisting of two houses, a senate and a house of representatives. Members of the senate are elected for six years, but the members of the house of representatives are chosen for two years only. Hence, the united body of senators and representatives for the two years, during which they hold their seats, is called one congress. Thus we say the second session of the sixteenth congress [and have a clear understanding that the parties making up that Congress were delegates from their respective States to a "political compact" entered into by "the several United States" assembled in a "federal republic" – all this in the 1844 definition by Noah Webster].

Here we move to the 1864 edition.

Congress [post 1863]: 5. The assembly of senators and representatives of the people of a nation especially of a republic, for the purpose of enacting laws, and considering matters of a national interest, and constituting the chief legislative body of the nation [no longer "the several States," but one nation and one citizenry instead of the independent Citizens of the several States].

E Pluribus Unum [pre 1864]: One composed of many; the motto of the United States, consisting of many States "confederated."

E Pluribus Unum [post 1863]: One out of many; one composed of many; – the motto of the United states, as being one government formed of many independent States.

Federal [pre 1864]: 1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations. 2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.

Federal [post 1863]: 1. Pertaining to a league, contract, or treaty; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, especially between nations; constituted by a compact between parties, usually governments or their representatives. 2. Specifically composed of states or districts which retain only a subordinate and limited sovereignty, as the Union of the United States, or the sonderbund of Switzerland; constituting or pertaining to such a government, as the Federal Constitution; a Federal officer; friendly or devoted to such a government.

About this time a second book-bearing cat dashed up, laying before me another dictionary that supported our findings with what the Merriam Webster Company had done. The newcomer wished to participate in the efforts of our group, as he too was fresh out of the bag bearing information of similar kind and believing it needed to be entered as corroborating evidence. Since the emerging practice in America was to manufacture new definitions and let many natural meanings just pine away and out of existence, this cat bore proof of the whole process in a collection of dictionaries he had obtained while researching the issue. Bragging of his volumes he stated that, in 1864, absolutely no other dictionary in the world carried the same definitions as this edition above cited, while pointing out that even the Merriam Webster Company had for 36 years stuck with the original and true definitions, and only after the appearance of that corrupt edition did other dictionary companies follow the trend. "Yep!" Meowed the two cats together, "We are out of the bag."

"May I see the one you have in your paw?" I asked.

Turning to the word "Federal," I read what this new company having just begun in 1890 had put in their 1895 edition. The book is titled A Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1895).

Federal Of or pertaining to, or founded upon and organized by, a compact or act of union between separate sovereign states; as (1) by a league for common interest and defense as regards external relations, the internal sovereignty of each member remaining unimpaired, as the Hanseatic League or the Germanic Confederation; or (2) by a permanent act of a union founded on the consent of the people duly expressed, constituting a government supreme within the sphere of the powers granted to it by that act of union, as the United States of America. The constitution of the United States of America is of a very different nature from that of the Germanic Confederation. It is not merely a league of sovereign States for their common defence against external and internal violence, but a supreme federal government or compositive State acting not only upon the sovereign members of the Union, but directly upon all its citizens in their individual and corporate capacities. Wheaton Elements International Law section 52 p. 78... >From 1776 to 1789 the United States were a confederation; after 1789 it was a federal nation [note: in 1776 and 1789 the words confederal and federal were synonyms].

"Paw that 1930 New Gresham English Dictionary over to me," I asked. Opening it to the word "federal," there I read

FEDERAL: Fed’er-al, a. [Fr. federal, fr. L. foedus, foederis, a league or treaty, seen also in confederate; akin to fidus, faithful, fides, faith. FAITH] Pertaining to a League, covenant, or contract, particularly between states or nations; united in a federation; confederated; founded on alliance between several states which unite for national or general purposes, each state retaining control of its home affairs, civil and criminal law, &e. (a federal republic) – n. One who upholds federal government.

Note that this dictionary was not influenced by the Merriam Webster company but retained the true etymology as historically laid out by all the earlier lexicographers. There are others also that unfailingly stuck with the truth in America. For instance, as late as 1947, the Winston Dictionary College Edition states:

Fed-er-al: pertaining to, or of the nature of, a compact or union of sovereign states, which agree to delegate certain specific governmental powers to the new state or government thus formed; 2, of or pertaining to an agreement or alliance between sovereign states which, for certain purposes, agree to act together; Federal, 1, designating, or pertaining to, the government of the United States as distinguished from that of any State; 2, during the American Civil War, favoring the North: Federal Reserve Bank, any one of twelve district banks established in the United States by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to cooperate with the Federal Reserve Board in Washington in regulating and aiding the member banks of each respective district: Federal, n. during the American Civil War, a supporter of the North.

Notice the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve board are mentioned here, but that is another cat and another bag. Moving on to the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary,

Federal [1965]: 1. archaic: of or relating to a compact or treaty 2 a: formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government b: of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units c: of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinguished from the government of the constituent units.

Notice that the original meaning is given as "archaic," a modern admission that the definition is still true, but has been archived. The difference between such an archived word and other terms relegated to obscurity (whatever they described having become disused, thus naturally fading from the language) is that "federal," plus additional entries already mentioned, and here I’ll quote Mr. Cat, "have been arrested right out of common usage and detained without counsel into the ‘archaic’ vault by iconoclastic sophists, to be replaced at their whims with captious and fallacious utterances."

Since the trend is now all "Porterized," it’s unlikely that an American will find any modern dictionary sticking with the true meanings of these words. For instance, the New World Edition’s

Federal [1978]: 1. of or formed by a compact; specifically designating or of a union of states, groups, etc. in which each member agrees to subordinate certain specified common affairs. 2. designating, of, or having to do with a central authority or government in such a union; specifically designating of, or having to do with the central government of the U.S. [Central authority???]

Federalize [pre 1864 Webster]: To unite in compact, as different states; to confederate for political purposes.

Compare that with the 1965 Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:

Federalize [post 1863]: 1 to unite in or under a federal system 2: to bring under the jurisdiction of a federal government.

And then see the New World Edition’s

Federalize [1978]: To unite (states, etc.) in a federal union. 2. To put under the authority of a federal government.

Federalized [pre 1864]: United in Compact. Federalizing [pre 1864]: Confederating

Federate [pre 1864] Leagued: united by compact, as sovereignties, states or nations; joined in confederacy; as, federate nations or powers.

Federate [post 1863 (1978 New world Edition)]: to league together... United by common agreement under a central government or authority... to unite in a federation.

Federation [pre 1864]: The act of uniting in a league. 2. A league; a confederacy.

Federative [pre 1864]: Uniting: joining in a league; forming a confederacy.

State [pre 1864]: 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. More usually the word signifies a political body governed by representatives; a commonwealth; as, the states of Greece; the States of America....

State [Post 1863]: 9. In the United States, one of the commonwealths or bodies politic, the people of which make up the body of the nation, and which under the national constitution, stand in certain specified relations with the national government, and are invested, as commonwealths, with full power in their several spheres, over all matters not expressly inhibited. [Notice the emphases on "national government" and the term, "invested as," not that each of them is a commonwealth; which meaning, by the way, of commonwealth, was also changed in the 1864 edition.]

State [1978 New World Edition]: …any of the territorial and political units that together constitute a federal government, as in the U.S.

State [Webster’s 10th Colligate Dictionary 2001]: 7: One of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government .

State-hood [1868]: The condition of being a state; esp: the status of being one of the states of the U.S. [note: the origin of this term was at that time when new State Constitutions were written by the Generals who held military forces over the defeated Constitutional States having tried to hang onto the original "Federal" Government. I should also add that those 1864 definitions would determine the political conditions in such new "States" no longer in possession of their formerly sovereign governments, each having become a "territorial unit," the newly applied sophist definition of a State].

State right-er [1947]: one who advocates strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of states’ rights. (See States’ Rights this edition.)

You may want to note that the term, "State(s)," as in the organic Constitution, is something quite different from its altered application in the "14th Amendment" of 1868. And the word Congress – before all that "reconstruction" legerdemain – would also have gained another meaning, in this so-called amendment, from what it had in the Constitution’s main body, i.e., if we are to believe that revised dictionary of 1864.

A historical brief ought to be prepared to help us understand the lexicographer behind those many falsified definitions, that we might determine whether or not he made such changes properly and legitimately. Noah Porter worked with Merriam Webster Company from the start, when they bought out the rights to continue Noah Webster’s works after the latter had died in 1843. Looking at all dictionaries from 1847 (the first Merriam Webster edition), and taking into account the fact that Noah Porter was on the staff maintaining former definitions as laid out by Noah Webster even through the 1863 version with no changes whatsoever until 1864, we see that the argument over States rights had peaked, and tyranny-minded men at that time were left with no other means of winning but by the sword and pistol.

Since Noah Webster in all of his efforts to define these key words having to do with understanding our government maintained that we had a confederation, no editing was called for. Everyone except those lusting for inordinate power considered the States sovereign – separate entities administered by their respective governments, and duly authorized to maintain themselves thus. The "delegated" (also a word changed in the 1864 edition) "Congress" was a body of representatives beholden to these States, and therefore not a nation.

We should also take note that when such words were falsified, Noah Porter and the Merriam Webster Company stood alone in the whole English-speaking world as to these new meanings. All lexicographers including Samuel Johnson, Boags, Walker and even Joseph Worcester maintained that "Federal" meant a league or compact (Compact was also changed), therefore a confederacy. Noah Webster and the entire realm of lexicography, along with Porter, had been agreed on this. But in 1864 Noah Porter and the Merriam Webster company sent the people of the United States into an obscurity of meanings and concepts.

Although a book could be written on this subject, I offer but one final item for consideration here, which rather than my conclusion is more of a question. Why did the 1864 "American edition" make these changes while the same staff left alone the previous definitions and did not alter them in their "London edition"? Yes, that’s right, the "American edition" alone had been reconstructed; London and all of the other English-speaking countries received their 1864 editions with the proper definitions intact, though both the American and the London compilations came from the same staff. Not until 1877 was England presented with the false definitions.

So, if you like what you’ve learned here, next time you see a cat treat it well and open that big can of tuna; rub him on top of the head as he purrs his way through it, for one never knows if it’s a cat-out-of-the-bag or just another scaredy-cat.

Oh! And here comes Detective Felix just now, toting a bag labeled "Socialism and the 80th Congress." Maybe later.


Joseph Rorie of Greeleyville, SC lectures on the Constitution wherever invited for expenses and tuna.
Email: rorie8th@bellsouth.net

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

World News Alaska News

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved