Watchman Willie Martin Archive

                                                                                                               Chapter Three

                                                                                         AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION

"The more thoroughly a nation deals with its history, the more decidedly will it recognize and own an over‑ruling Providence therein, and the more religious a nation will it become; while the more superficially it deals with its history, seeing only secondary causes and human agencies, the more irreligious will it be." [1]

All nations are arbitrary collections of men under a common government, they are political mechanisms which have a purpose only in the sense that it can be attributed to mechanism such as a train or an automobile. When one speaks of a national purpose because every government reflects the personality of those in control of the vehicle or government in this case. Under a dictatorship the national purpose is clearly discernable as that of the dominant group or individual. Under a representative government, like that of the United States, the national purpose will tend to reflect that of the people as a whole. However, in recent years the United States has been subjected to increasingly serious challenge, and by no means its only enemy is Communism. Its enemies are legion and are seemingly without number.

In spite of what the enemies of Christ and the United States would have you believe: AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION!

"The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." [2]; "As Men we have God for our King, and are under the Law of Reason: as Christians, we have Jesus the Messiah for our King, and are under the Law revealed by Him in the Gospel." [3]

Prior to 1776 the Colonies which later became known as the United States of America, were under the Common Law of England, sovereign in their own right, as were the people, under the Articles of Confederation. Christianity being dominant in the land. At the birth of America the "People" "Ordained" and "Established" a Christian Nation, by adopting the Christian Common Law as the Supreme Law of the Land. The system of law and jurisprudence which they adopted was the Common Law of England, but only in so far as it was in agreement with the Law of the Bible. The Founding Fathers, like their English and German ancestors, had a profound respect for the Holy Bible and the principles of liberty stated therein. THEY ALSO HAD A PROFOUND HATRED OF "DEMOCRACY!"


   DEMOCRACY: A political system in which government is directly exercised or controlled by the people Collectively.

   REPUBLIC: A state where the sovereignty resides in the people and the administration is lodged in officers ELECTED BY and REPRESENTING the                  people: as in the REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It is important to review the distinction between a republic and a democracy by examining a U.S. Army Training Manual (TM 2000-25) issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928; to clearly see the degeneration that has occurred in our once Christian Nation. This publication, used to educate American soldiers on the distinction between a republic and a democracy, was withdrawn from circulation and publication by the U.S. Government long ago. However, it contains excellent information for those seeking to understand what good Citizenship is all about.

The following information was taken from the 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a democracy and a republic and explaining the differences between the two. These definitions issued by authority of the U.S. Government should be acceptable as authentic in any court in America.

   CITIZENSHIP: Training Manual 2000-25, Sect. 118-121 on Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

   CITIZENSHIP: Training Manual 2000-25, Sects. 118-121 on Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established  evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. It is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of;

   1). an executive and;

   2). a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise             revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create;

   3). a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize;

   4). certain inherent individual rights. Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. (Atwood).

   CITIZENSHIP: Training Manual 2000-25, Sect. 121: Superior to all others. Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They,

"made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy...and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic." [4]

It is important to point out that a republic, as good as it may be, is not the very best type of government, the best being a theocracy under which Yahweh rules by virtue of His Law. The Commandments, Statutes, and Judgments of the Living God as contained in the Holy Bible constitute the Law for a theocratic nation. Under this there is no need for a legislative body to enact thousands of unjust laws, since Almighty God, the only Lawgiver, has already legislated His Law government.

For a "century and a quarter" no American President failed to publicly affirm that he considered himself as President of a Republic. President Wilson was the first one to introduce this change and, the first ten words of his inaugural address should be remembered by every student of American Government, they were.


A 'DEMOCRACY' CAN SIGN ITS OWN DEATH WARRANT! Our original Republic could not. The mere fact that representative government is based on delegated authority requires that the limitations on such authority be defined. It is the relationship of principal and agent. The Constitution is a contract between the principal (the citizen or voter) and the agent (the legislator, administrative or judicial officer). Democratic action, after the revolution made possible Communism in Russia. The abandonment of our Constitution or a failure to abide by it is rapidly bringing about Communist-Socialism in the United States.

In America, under Roosevelt, it was known as the 'New Deal.' In Germany, under Hitler, it was called 'Nazism.' In England, it is known as 'Socialism.' Under President Bush, it is called 'A New World Order.' But whatever name one cares to give it, it is totalitarianism or Communism! The adoption of Democracy as a form of government, upon close examination has always been fatal to good government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, to Christianity and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a tyranny will arise. A "New World Order" if you will!

There is no better way to destroy our government than to champion legislation under the guise of democracy, which piece by piece undermines the checks and balances of our Republic. Hence at all costs, the difference between a republic and a democracy must be made clear to the American people. For the advocates of Communism, Socialism, New Dealism, Fascism, Nazism, Great Societies, Judeo‑Christianity, New Liberalism and neo‑Conseritivities are constantly obscuring vital issues by juggling with the favorable connotation the word democracy possess in the minds of Americans. 'Isms' are sometimes supported by a misled majority. In Russia, however, the totalitarian regime was established by a minority. But in Germany, the regime was established by an enraged majority who were successful in thwarting the plans of a minority. In that particular case, the minority was responsible for the so‑called 'direct action' reforms that were later to make them fugitives from their own land. Everybody lost, the majority, in their effective suppression of the minority by the placing of unlimited power in the hands of a dictator found themselves subjected by the same collectivist governmental machine.

Those who drew up our Constitution in the 18th century foresaw 20th century developments. THEY WERE GUARDING AGAINST A MINORITY. In order to see this, we must read what was written in "The Federalist" No. X, by Madison:

     "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction the form of popular government, they enable it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good, and private rights. From this point of view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of party. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of govern-ment itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

     Theoretic politicians who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for that which we are seeking. That is why the American system has enabled us to advance faster and further than any people in the entire world's history.

     One can follow the trail of the attempts to break down ordered government while hiding under the popular connotations of the term 'democracy.' The effects beginning with Russia. Next came Hungary, whose collapse a year later enabled Karolyi to establish a so‑called 'democracy' under which Hungary was thrown into chaos, and the ensuing disorder made it possible for Bela Kuhn, Trotzkite Internationalist, to take over. 'Democracy' came to Germany with the abdication of the Kaiser; and led to Hitler. Calles brought 'democracy' to Mexico and it has turned into Communism. The centralization of power that was made possible by removing the checks and balances that stood in the way of a people granting rights to a dictator under waves of emotional hysteria or under soothing promises of a demagogue. It is happening in these United States ‑‑ where it is called a 'New World Order.' By one who has crossed the Rubicon. Even if it means a civil war, which is what happened when Caesar crossed his Rubicon. '... The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty...' The Rights of the Colonists as Christians'...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver...which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." [5]


In 1789, America recognized only male members of the White Race as being able to establish a righteous criteria for voting, as citizens of the State wherein they resided. Women did not vote because they still obeyed the Word of God and were under the Biblical covers of their fathers and husbands.

"...that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefaced­ness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjec­tion. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgres­sion." [6]

It was the view of the Founding Fathers, that the political realm was regarded as a mere reflection or extension of the Law or Word of Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, ALL LAW is a direct reflection of the prevailing religion upon which a state is founded.

     THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SECULAR STATE; for "religion" is the great state‑building principle. The American colonists created a new state, because they were already a church, A "CHRISTIAN" CHURCH, and that church was the very soul of the created state. Our Fore Fathers held as Divine Doctrine, that governments were made for the benefit of the governed and not for that of the governors, who were to regard themselves as THE SERVANTS OF GOD; appointed for the benefit of His Israel People, the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred People of the United States and the rest of the so‑called Christian Nations of the World.

"For rulers are NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL...For he [Government Agent] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid..." [7]

                                                                                        THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." [8]

That government is ordained of God is a Biblical precept beyond reasonable controversy [9]. The Biblical reasons for government are as follows:

   1). To punish murderers and violent offenders against mankind in order to protect the innocent and maintain order [10].

   2). To establish courts for the settlement of civil strife or disputes (Judges).

   3). To maintain a sufficient military force in reserve to protect the citizenry against unwarranted domestic and foreign aggression [11].

The preceding three reasons for the establishment of government are to allow man to exercise three rights granted by the Creator: Life, Liberty, and Property ("Pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence was substituted for "property"). The most profound thesis on government ever written was by a Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat (1801‑1850), titled "The Law." Bastiat wrote:

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

God ordained government TO PROTECT THESE RIGHTS, and government is simply the centralized will of men whose consciences dictate that such precious gifts from the Creator be guarded from usurpation by ungodly men. Or, as Bastiat explained:

"If every person has the right to defend, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly." [12]

The Biblical concept of government is always presented in the negative, rather than the positive. The government cannot promise the citizenry anything other than protection. While it can promise protection from injustice, it cannot offer administration of justice, food, housing, or even equality, without planting the seeds for its own destruction. Bastiat explained the downfall of government through the ungodly usurpation of the rights of the individual thusly:

"It can be further stated that, thanks to the non‑intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instructions before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and populations that are caused by legislative decisions...The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: it has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense...The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: greed and false philanthropy."

It is a natural instinct to want to help others, and this is an inherent faculty imparted in the truth that man was made in the image of God. But in government, philanthropy, in due course, is used by evil men ruled by greed to promote their own powers, ambitions, and agendas. One example that Bastiat gave of the perversion of government through false philanthropy was education, which produces a pseudo‑intellectual, educational

"paradise" where God is left out.

Subsequently, moral decline sets in and men merely become clever devils. In spite of all the billions poured into education and college student support programs in the U.S., it can be argued without contradiction that the citizenry as a whole is actually worse off than it was fifty years ago. Due to the unnatural intervention of government into education and the social order, employment figures in many metropolitan areas favor 70 percent for women to 30 percent for men, further contributing to the increase in crime and the moral degeneracy fomented by the breakup of the family unit.

Entitlement is another matter that infuses greed and plunder into the governmental quagmire. According to the 1994 World Almanac, over $16 billion a year is required just to pay veteran's pensions. Add to this the billions paid each year to the millions of retired government employees (hidden in budget figures) and the cost to working taxpayers is staggering.

In the 1992 fiscal year $257 billion was spent (again at taxpayer expense) on government philanthropic programs (*health and human services), and another $281 billion for social security benefits. It should be pointed out, however, that Social Security is the only true government entitlement program, in that workers have paid their retirement benefits into the insurance fund. Every legislator in Congress has their own particular pet pork barrel project; every lobbyist walking the halls of Congress is after their sponsor's share of the tax dollar. With only nineteen exceptions, every member of the House and Senate, plus all past members still living (whether retired or defeated for office), are eligible (based on the average life span) for $100,000 to $500,000 a year for the rest of their lives in pensions and benefits. Bastiat observed:

"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter, by peaceful or revolutionary means, into making the laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. Woe to the nation when the latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws."

Did the results of the November elections indicate a class struggle where the taxpayers were simply attempting to put in power those who would reduce their tax burden? Did the results indicate a national revulsion against the immorality and corruption in the present administration (a national poll indicated that among 70 percent of the voters morality was a consideration), or did the vote indicate that the voters want government to stay out of their lives and not be a usurper of the individual God‑given rights of the people?

The Republican party attained, through the November elections, a majority of the seats in both the House and the Senate as well as in state governorships. If there are no changes, or only cosmetic ones in the federal and state governments, then in 1996 the Republicans will be voted out and the Democrats voted back in. The political circus will continue as long as the legislators can collect enough tax money to keep enough of the philanthropic recipients of government dole voting them back into office. Bastiat wrote of those who are beneficiaries of political plunder:

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property...Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain, and since labor is pain in itself, it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it become more painful and more dangerous than labor."

There are a greater percentage of criminals and welfare recipients in the population of the United States than any other country in the world, but it should be quickly noted that criminals and welfare recipients do not fall in the same social category. The prisons of America are glutted with murderers, dope peddlers, robbers, thieves, rapists, you name it, they're there. But, due to a federal law, when a prison exceeds its inmate quota the excess must be turned loose again on society.

Often, even the most violent and dangerous criminals spend only a few days in jail, and then are allowed back out on the streets to kill, rob, and rape. (But a youngster that has done no more than smoke a few joints of Murrina, or a tax protester, will have to spend their full sentence in jail) Congress passed a $30 billion plus crime bill to hire more policemen and build more jails.

Will it help? NO! Some new members in Congress say they plan to strengthen the bill, but even shoring it up will not help. What will help is to execute every criminal on death row within 90 days, and then begin shipping the rest to a secured island with enough lumber to build dwellings, plows to till the ground, and seeds to plant. The penalty for plunder will then become more painful than working for an honest living.

In the meantime, Americans are spending trillions of dollars for jails, police salaries and bureaucracies, insurance, and the court systems. It does great harm to pass legislation to deter crime when murderers and rapists are not executed, and liberal judges and juries excuse the criminal and ignore the rights of the victim.

The O.J. and Nicole Simpson case was an excellent example of what's wrong with America: divorce, dependent children, too much money, too little responsibility, fornication, adultery, miscegenation, drugs, idolization of false gods of sports, lies, abuse, racial conflicts, murder, abortion, too many lawyers, and a judicial system that leaves a brainwashed and oversexed generation crying for more sensational news media titillation.

Indeed, O.J. and Nicole Simpson epitomize the present American generation. Only a continuing united voter demand for the strict enforcement of the capital punishment laws, linked with the abolishing of socialistic programs that only create criminal and crime environments, will make a change in the crime statistics in this country.

President Lyndon Johnson, through federal subsidization of his "Great Society" program, was going to eliminate poverty. Thirty years later, after plundering the working class of trillions of dollars for welfare, there are ten times as many on the welfare rolls now than there were at the beginning.

When you subsidize welfare, accepting government aid becomes less painful than working, and women bearing illegitimate children will continue to do what to them comes natural. Statistics showing that the percentage rate of illegitimacy has increased over five times in recent years have been published again and again. Social weepers will moan and groan before TV cameras how these poor women struggle just to make their welfare checks stretch far enough to obtain the bare necessities of life.

It is true that some mothers on welfare have been abused, and that husbands have left them with several children to care for. However, as we read in the Bible, the rain falls on the just as it does on the unjust, and unless welfare is stopped altogether the bumper crop of welfare bums will continue to be harvested. Churches and local aid programs can be marshalled to help those deserving of financial assistance.

Only by eliminating welfare will the foundation of every social order, the family, be restored in the nation. Boys and girls will be more careful about selecting a mate; a husband and wife will try more earnestly to make their marriage work before getting a divorce; and single women will be more careful about engaging in sex before marriage.

Termination of federal welfare programs will also result in lowering the crime rate. The majority of criminals today come from single‑parent or broken homes where no moral or spiritual guidance is provided. They have grown up without respect for the work ethic, law, property, or their fellow man. But! Stop welfare and there could be a near revolution in our nation. Not only will welfare recipients riot, pillage, and burn when welfare checks stop, the liberal news media will stir up millions of sobbing social apologists to join the cause of "decency."

Senator Phil Gramm, on the NBC program "Meet The Press," revealed that welfare spending last year (1994) totaled $310 billion. Several congressmen and senators are now proposing legislation to either stop or overhaul the federal welfare dole program. Bastiat observed:

"While society is struggling, men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rosseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations."

Bastiat, citing welfare entrenched programs that go back in history to the times of the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, concluded that the only way such federally endowed systems have ever been stopped or reversed was through an absolute dictatorship. Therefore, with the authority of history, it is likely that some legislators will orate and propound brave words about emptying the public trough, but the majority in Congress will shout them down as cruel and heartless Scrooges. Ultimately, little will be done other than an obscure reshuffling of the public dole which will signify nothing. The taxpayers will, as Bastiat said, continue to meekly submit to tyrannical philanthropy because no one wants to be accused of allowing widows and children to go hungry.

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, by using the income tax, meaning a tax on income, there was collected in 1992 $476 billion from individual citizens and $100 billion from corporations, with another $413 billion from employees and employers in Social Security "contributions." Total revenue from all sources for the federal government in 1992 was $1.1 trillion.

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution became the law of the land in 1913. This law  made legal the confiscation of certain percentages of income to both individuals and businesses. The income tax law did not limit or qualify the way in which the tax receipts were to be used. Therefore, the "law" not only set historical precedents as an instrument for plunder, but it gave to the federal government great powers over all those bound under it. When Nelson Mandela, the new president of South Africa, was asked how he would redistribute the wealth, he replied without hesitation or apology, "Through taxation." Whether we agree or disagree with the need or application of the income tax law, it is used in many ways as a vehicle of socialism; taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have‑nots." A Reuters news story, dateline Washington, November 14, 1994, stated in part:

"Congressional leaders Sunday distanced themselves from proposals by some leading Republicans to scrap the income tax and impose a national sales tax instead."

This news report continued to reflect the views of some of the leading members of Congress. Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich said it should be considered, but that there are more important matters like cutting the budget that needs their attention first. Congressman Gephardt from Missouri said that he was against terminating the income tax law and believed that such a thing would never happen because the poor would have to bear a disproportionate percentage of the tax burden.

However, let us consider that a citizen who makes $20,000 a year would spend $10,000 on taxable merchandise and services, while another citizen making $1 million would spend $500,000 on taxable items. If the sales tax for the federal budget was 5 percent, then the lower income person would pay $1,000 a year, and the higher income person would pay $25,000, or twenty‑five times as much.

These Americans in the lower income tax bracket must pay the social security tax out of their wages, and they also must pay for their public utilities like everyone else, so why not let them bear some of the federal expense even though it may be only a small part. There are some high ranking members of Congress like Dick Armey and Bill Archer of Texas, and Pete Domenici of New Mexico who plan to introduce a bill in January 1995 to do away with the income tax law.

Whether such a bill will ever pass Congress is questionable. If it should pass, President Clinton would likely veto it. The federal bureaucracy in both the executive and legislative branches of government will fight to the death rather than relinquish this power‑control weapon over the population, a law that presumes tax payers guilty until proven innocent. Referencing Bastiat once again:

"Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder...Now, legal plunder can be committed in an indefinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs (taxes), benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on. All these plans as a whole, with their common aim of legal plunder, constitute socialism. Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task."

One hundred and fifty years ago Bastiat advised that if we attempt to attack socialistic legal plunder on the grounds of the ultimate recipients like widows, farmers, orphans, police enforcement, etc., we will lose and legal plunder will only become worse. Socialism, and its ultimate weapon, the income tax, must be opposed on a basis of doctrine that considers the restraint on production, the unfairness to the working class, and the moral damage to both the nation and the recipients as well. However, even if as a result of the 1994 elections the income tax law is rescinded (which is not likely), new safeguards would have to be written into the new tax system or the same bureaucratic‑socialistic evils would just continue in another form.

During the early years of America, each family was considered in itself to be a unit of government, with only adult males casting the votes. The de jure government established in 1789, was basically Christian; it was established on Bible Law ‑‑ A Republican Representative form of Government: One which honored the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian Faith! The prosperity and happiness of the American People was seen by the other nations of the world, and the founding fathers, to be a direct outcome of its Christian Religion and that ruin was inevitably seen to be the outcome following vice and sin. And it was their view that the first duty of a government was to support, teach and practice the Christian Religion of the Nation, by public recognition and honor paid to it in the outward forms of its worship, and by using it as the groundwork of the education of the people; and by putting a social stigma upon all deviation from it.

It was widely believed, failure to adhere to these principles would inevitably lead to the destruction of the United States.

"The dread and redoubtable sovereign, when traced to his ultimate and genuine source, has been found, as he ought to have been found, in the free and independent man...This truth, so simple and natural, and yet so neglected or despised, may be appreciated as the first and fundamental principle in the science of government." [13]

This, then, was the prevailing view of history, law and religion at the time the American Republic was founded and subsequently for the first one hundred years of its existence. The organic law completely embodied those Christian principles because it was wholly based upon the same authority that taught them ‑‑ THE CHRISTIAN HOLY BIBLE.

"Next to the power of religion, a strict administration of justice is the best security of morals. Foreign influence will not greatly prevail, as long as morals remain uncorrupted. The British common law is, therefore, one of the bulwarks against that corruption of manners, which will invite foreign influence, in spite of all the frothy harangues that will ascribe it to the wrong causes. A people thoroughly licentious and corrupt [And democracy will make them such], will be betrayed, and foreign states will reward demagogues for managing their passions to mislead them. It is by practicing on their hopes and fears, that such men gain an influence over the people, and after they have gained, they have it for sale." [14]

The Common Law of England, in its purest and earliest form, was Germanic and Celtic in origin. Beyond that its roots go back into the mists of history, to ancient Israel. It appears over and over again in the records and traditions of all the Aryan nations. In the ancient records it is always described and couched in the context of a fundamental law of divine origin associated with the governance of all nature.

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." [15]

The founding fathers of the American Republic referred to it as "the law of nature and nature's God." This phrase was lifted directly from the "Lex Salica," the common law of the German tribes that over ran Europe as well as Scandinavia and eventually settled in large portions of what was then Britain, later to become England. Both Franklin and Jefferson stated that the substantive principles of representatives government upon which the American Constitution was founded were taken from two sources.

   THE FIRST: Was the system of Constitutional Government was practiced by Ancient Israel, under the leadership of first Moses and later Joshua.

" the essential condition and guardian of religion; and it is in the history of the Chosen People, accordingly, that the first illustrations of my subject are obtained. The government of the Israelites was a Federation, held together by no political authority, but by the unity of race and faith, and founded, not on physical force, but on a voluntary covenant. The principle of self‑ government was carried out not only in each tribe, but in every group of at least 120 families; and there was neither privilege of rank nor inequality before the law. Monarchy was so alien to the primitive spirit of the community that it was resisted by Samuel in that kingdoms of Asia and many of the kingdoms of Europe have unceasingly confirmed." [16]

   THE SECOND: Source was the institutes of government of the Anglo‑Saxons which were almost identical to those of the Ancient Israelites. America                      being a third.

"The heroic age of Greece confirms it, and it is still more conspicuously true of Teutonic Europe. Wherever we can trace the earlier life of the Aryan nations we discover germs which favoring circumstance and assiduous culture might have developed into free societies. They exhibit some sense of Common interest in common concerns, little reverence for external authority, and an imperfect sense of the function and supremacy of the state." [17]

Jefferson's historical studies brought him to the conclusion that ancient Israel was the first nation in history to have a representative government; he also discovered that 1500 years later the Anglo‑Saxons were living under a system which was almost identical. Was there a connection? Were these two peoples so separated by time and geography related?

"...And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions..." [18]

Franklin and Jefferson both proposed a national seal for our new nation which portrayed on one side the Children of Israel in the wilderness led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. And on the other side of the proposed seal was portrayed:

"Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs, from whom we claim the honor of being descended and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed." [19]

The motto which Jefferson and Franklin proposed to go on the national seal was,


Jefferson wrote extensively at the time about the need for a renaissance of Anglo‑Saxon primitive institutions on the new continent. He considered the American Rebelion as nothing but the declaration of the Anglo‑Saxon birthright of which the colonists had been deprived by "a long train of abuses." On August 13, 1776, Jefferson wrote to Edmund Pendleton to convince him that Virginia must abolish the remnants of feudalism and return to the "ancient principles:"

"Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system? Has not every restitution of the ancient Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the eighth century?" [20]

Jefferson even studied the language of the Anglo‑Saxons so that he might read their laws in the original tongue. In a letter to his old tutor, George Wythe, dated November 1, 1778, Jefferson wrote that:

"...the extracts from the Anglo‑Saxon law, the sources of the Common Law, I wrote in the original for my own satisfaction; but I have added Latin or liberal English translations." [21]

Jefferson also stated in 1803:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which He {Christ} wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others."

Also said the following about centralized government:

     "...I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. It places the governors indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people."; "If ever this vast country is brought under a single {Central} government, it will be one of the most extensive in corruption."; "Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants, at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste...

     What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general government. The true theory of our Constitution {strict construction} is surely the wisest and best - that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage themselves. And our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very inexpensive one: a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants."


The Anglo‑Saxons originated in the area of the Black Sea in the centuries before Christ and from there spread all across Northern Europe. This was the same area to which the Northern Ten Tribes of Ancient Israel had been transported by their Assyrian conquerors some 100 years earlier. THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATION OF THESE HISTORICAL FACTS IS THAT THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES AND THE LATTER DAY ANGLO‑SAXONS ARE ONE AND THE SAME PEOPLE.

The two peoples share many of the same cultural practices and preserved the same unique institutes of government. The Anglo‑Saxons organized themselves into units identical to those of the ancient Israelites described in the Old Testament. As called for by Biblical Law, their society was organized upon the foundation of the family and the tribal concept of clan, sept, kith and kin.

"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self‑government, without which they never can act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system..." [22]

Like the ancient Israelites, the Anglo‑Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen with certain inalienable rights and duties intended for the preservation of blood and soil. All laws, as well as the election of leaders, had to be by the common consent of the people. Authority granted to a chieftain in time of war was extremely limited and was taken away from him as soon as the emergency passed.

Again, as in the Bible, THEIR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WAS BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF PAYMENT OF DAMAGES [restitution] TO THE VICTIM RATHER THAN CALLING IT A CRIME AGAINST THE WHOLE PEOPLE. They recognized all the capital crimes designated in the Bible and their punishments were the same. For documentation as to the foregoing see:

   1). Colin Rhys Lovel, English Constitutional and Legal History, Oxford University Press, 1962; and

   2). Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo‑Saxons, London: Longman, etc., 1836, pp. 221‑225).

From the foregoing historical authorities, it is evident that the common law and the law of God are synonymous, the former having originated in the latter. It is also evident that these things were all part of our ancestral birthright long before the advent of the Roman Church of Europe and the Isles. In fact, these cultural, historical and genetic associations can be traced directly back to the time of the classical civilization of ancient Israel and beyond.

"...'in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it is said was causa causans,' and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded in God's revelation of that law to Moses." [23]; "...The eternal principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that any person reviling, subverting, or ridiculing them, may be prosecuted at common law..." [24]

Thus, as originally adopted in England from both the Celtic and Germanic influences, THIS COMMON LAW EMBRACED ALL THE FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF BIBLICAL LAW as to property and the rights of the individual.

"By the Common Law and by the Bible, which is the foundation of the Common Law..." [25]


This nation was begun as The last word in human political institutions ‑‑ A Republican form of Government!

     "The vast region which the flag of the United States protects was, two centuries and a half ago, the roaming ground of tribes of Indians...It was virtually a wast awaiting, in the order of Providence, the magic influence of an incoming race, imbued with the spirit of a new civilization. The period referred to was an epoch in which there had been a providential preparation for great events in the Old World. It was an era of wonderful discovery in the heavens and the earth. It was also the period of the Reformation. This, in its essence, was the assertion of the principle of individuality, or of true spiritual freedom; and in the beginning, not by Protestants alone, of whom Luther was the great exponent... Though first occupied with subjects not connected with political speculation, yet it was natural and inevitable, that inquiry should widen out from the realm of the Church into that of the State. Then a fresh impetus was given to that transformation of society, which began when Christianity ‑ the basis of the good, permanent, and progres­sive in modern civilization first appeared in the world. At that time, social order rested on the assumed natural inequality of men. The individual­ was regarded as of value only as he formed a part of the political fabric, and was able to contribute to its uses, as though it were the end of his being to aggrandize the State. This was the pagan idea of man.

     The wisest philosophers of antiquity could not rise above it. Its influence imbued the pagan world. The State regarded as of paramount importance, not the man, but the citizen whose physical and intellectual forces it absorbed.

     If this tended to foster lofty civic virtues and splendid individual culture in the classes whom the State selected as the recipients of its favors, it bore hard on those whom the State virtually ignored, on laboring men, mechanics, the poor, captives in war, slaves, and woman. This low view of man was exerting its full influence when Rome was at the height of its power and glory.           

     Christianity then appeared with its central doctrine, that man was created in the Divine image, and destined for immortality; pronouncing, that, in the eye of God, all men are equal. This asserted for the individual an independent value. It occasioned the great inference, that man is superior to the State, which ought to be fashioned for his use. This was the advent of a new spirit and a new power in the world. The struggle between the pagan and Christian elements was severe.

     In four centuries, civil society was transformed from the pagan basis to that of Christiani­ty. But, long after Rome had crumbled, the influence of Paganism, under various forms, continued to operate; and especially the idea, that man was made for the State, the office of which, or of a divine right vested in one, or in a privileged few, was to fashion the thought and control the action of the many.

     Its embodi­ment in arbitrary power, both in ecclesiastical and political affairs, continued to oppress and benumb the intellect, until the Reformation roused a spirit of activity in the bosom of the Church.

     The new life thus started in the domain of religion soon communicated itself to other provinces...There then rose, above the low level of a corrupt political world, a class of thinkers who grasped the idea that the State ought to exist for man; that justice, protection, and the common good, ought to be the aim of government...Among them were John Milton, imbued with the very spirit of the Reformation, who defended the noble thesis, that freedom is the native right of man, and gave the world a mighty and still unsurpassed plea for liberty of utterance; John Locke...was so successful in catching and expressing the liberal spirit of his age, in his work on Civil Government, that it became the platform of a great political party, and gradually widened out into an influence that operated far beyond the thought or the theory of its adherents; so that, Hallam says, 'while silently spreading its fibers from its roots over Europe and America, it prepared the way for theories hardly bolder in their announcement, but expressed with more passionate ardor, from which the last and present age have sprung.' This historical judgment is applicable to a line of illustrious characters, who grasped the Christian idea of man; and, because of the brilliancy of their service in behalf of human rights, they deserve a place among the morning stars of the American constellation." [26]


                                                                                      "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Liberty is a word often uttered, but seldom understood. It is the theme of ardent elocution, but of little sober considera-tion. Poets and orators have eulogized the attributes of Liberty; demagogues shout the word from the roof‑tops, for political advancement; enemies of our Israel people have used the word as a battle cry to start wars in their efforts to destroy them; yet few, investigate or comprehend its true nature. Civil liberty, the liberty of a community, is a severe and restrained thing.

The fundamental idea of it is that of protection in the enjoyment of our own rights, up to the point where we begin to entrench upon the rights of others. It is natural liberty, so far restrained, and only so far, as may be necessary for the public good. Every law, which abridges personal freedom, without a corresponding general advantage, is an infringement of civil liberty.

But it is no infringement of liberty to restrain the freedom of subjection, and obedience. Motesquieu has well defined it, when he says, that it "consists in the power of doing what we wish to do, and in not being constrained to do what we ought to not to do." [27] Liberty is a right of doing what the laws permit. For if one citizen does what the law forbids, all might do it, which would eventually result in anarchy. In such a state True liberty would expire.

"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes...In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." [28]


However, as early as the fifteenth century various Jewish practices with regard to debt, usury, taxation of the land, inheritance of the land and mortgages [The death gate] had begun to creep into the common law of England via the influence of Jewish money lenders attached to the throne. These principles of Jewish law had their origins in the Babylonian Talmud and not the Bible. These practices were correctly perceived by the American colonists as alien and contrary to Biblical law and all the principles of liberty championed therein. For this reason the common law of England was considered by the colonists as defiled and corrupted everywhere the Talmudic influence had touched it.

The American Founding Fathers utterly rejected and scorned these influences. They were well aware that the practices of the Jews came not from the Old Testament, but rather from the Talmud and other spurious rabbinical sources. They knew that Christ had referred to the Babylonian teachings of the Jews as "the traditions of the elders" and had condemned these practices as being not only contrary to the Law of God but of actually making God's Law of no effect. Our forefathers knew that Judaism and Christianity were total opposites, which is much more than the Judeo-Christian preachers of today know.

     "The current expression 'Judeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's mind, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity; for by abolishing the fundamental distinctions between Jewish and Christian messianism, IT SEEKS TO BRING TOGETHER TWO IDEAS THAT ARE RADICALLY IN OPPOSITION. By laying the accent exclusively on the 'Christian' idea to the detriment of the 'Judean' it conjures away monotheistic messianism - a valuable discipline at all levels of thought, and reduces it to a purely confessional messianism, preoccupied like Christian messianism with the salvation of the individual soul. If the term 'Judeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea.

     It is based on a 'contrdictio in adjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct a civilization. Christianity offers to the world a limited messianism which it wishes to impose as the only valid one...Even Spinoza, who was further than any other thinker from the historic messianism of Israel, wrote: 'As for what certain churches say, that God assumed human nature, I must confess that this seems to me as absurd as saying that a circle assumed the shape of a square ...' The dogmatic exclusiveness professed by Christianity must finally end...It is the obstinate Christian claim to be the sole heir to Israel which propagates-anti-Semitism. This scandal must terminate sooner or later; the sooner it goes, the sooner the world will be rid of the issue of lies in which anti-Semitism shrouds itself." [29]

The Rabbis of Judaism understand this just as do the leaders in the Christian movement. Rabbi Moshe Maggal of the National Jewish Information Service said in 1961 when the term Judeo‑Christian was relatively new,

"There is no such thing as a Judeo‑Christian religion. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other." [30]

The Talmud was considered to be the complete antithesis of Biblical Law and when adopting the common law for the new Republic the Founding Fathers specifically rejected anything and everything that had the slightest odor or stench of Jewish influence.


They removed everything that was contrary to the Christian understanding of God's Law as set forth in both the Old and New Testaments and it was their stated intention that the justice embraced by the Constitution would be defined in terms of Christian Morality and none other. They fully adopted and implemented the Law of God not only as the judicial standard for measuring and determining justice, but also for the very organization of the government itself.

"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice..." [31]

As a matter of law, Christianity was to be the foundational influence in all the social, political and economic aspects of the social compact and government formed; Christianity was to completely define and determine the very organization and structure of the government.

"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania..." [32]; "The distinguished commentator on the laws of England informs us, that upon the foundations of the law of nature and the law of revelation, all human law depends, [33]. The municipal law looks to something more than merely the protection of lives, the liberty, and the property of our people. REGARDING CHRISTIANITY AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND, it respects and protects its institutions; and assumes likewise the regulate the public morals and decency of the community." [34]

The moral, ethical and spiritual force of Christianity was so interwoven into the fabric of the Republic that one could not be separated from the other without destroying both. Thus, the ancient common law adopted as the foundation of the American Republic, being fully predicated upon the Christian revelation of the Scriptures and the Divine Commandments therein, was rightfully referred to as "Christian Common Law."

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, pagan, stoic, or Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions AND THE RULE BY WHICH ALL LEGAL CONTROVERSIES ARE SETTLED." [35]


Thus, the colonists "Established" their state constitutions within the principles of the common law [as measured against the Bible] to assure that THE NATION [The United States] WOULD BE A CHRISTIAN REPUBLIC.

"The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious Liberty." [36]

What does Justice Chase mean?

"The Christian Religion is the established religion by OUR FORM OF GOVERN­MENT?"

Isn't it true that Christians believe that our Father is composed of three co‑equal parts in one whole: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? Isn't this a major tenet of the Christian Faith? The Constitution of Delaware (1776) clearly points out that this is a part of the Christian faith embraced by our forefathers. It requires that the following declaration be made before taking a seat in the legislature, entering upon the execution of an office, or occupying a place of trust in the Delaware government, to wit:

"I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." [37]

Thus, the oath requires three fundamental declarations:

   a). A belief in the divinity of Jesus the Christ;

   b). A belief in the divine origins of both the Old and New Testaments; and,

   c). A belief in the triune nature of our God; the principle of three in one.

Upon these three points the founding fathers defined what was and was not "Christian" and organized our government.

The government in a Christian Nation must be fashioned after its head, i.e. the one true God declared in the Delaware Constitution and in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, we find the source of three co‑equal branches of government in a Christian Republic. Now you understand why Mr. Justice Chase said that

"the Christian Religion is the established religion by our form of government" [A Christian Republic].

Obviously, if Christianity is the established religion, then it is also the protected religion. Consider that the nature of the sovereignty determines the nature of the government both as to structure as well as function. This is so because the form of government must follow the form and practice of the religion that created it and gave it birth. And don't you doubt for one minute that absolutely ALL governments are founded upon and find their origins in religion! Even that of the Soviet Union! It follows then that a system of government and law founded upon the principles of Christianity is fundamentally duty bound to protect and nurture Christianity. Otherwise it has no reason to justify its continued existence.

A government which acts contrary to its own founding principles and pollutes the wellsprings of its own creation must decline into chaos, anarchy and destruction. It is impossible for such a government to bring about order and harmony in anything. It is an abomination! And the people of the land shall know the same end as the government they tolerated and supported. The law of nature and divine justice will not be defied! We SHALL REAP ALL THAT WE HAVE SOWN.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." [38]

In Leviticus 26:22, the penalties for flouting the commands of the Everliving God are clearly set out:

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate."


As a means of contrast, let's review the constitution of the Soviet Union. There we find that only one branch of government holds the governing power. The USSR, being officially un‑Christian or an anti‑Christ nation, does not depend upon the design embodied in Christian doctrine for the establishment of their nation and government.

"The highest organ of state power in the USSR is the Supreme Soviet of the USSR." [39]; "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti‑religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens." [40]

Apparently there must be more than one type of republic. The U.S.S.R. is called a "republic." The United States of America is a "republic." But, by their respective forms of government, they are clearly differentiated as two contrasting types thereof. We're told that the U.S.S.R. is becoming more like the U.S.A. THIS IS LIE; just the opposite is true. The truth is that AMERICA, today IS, by the process of legislative fiat, BEING TRANSFORMED FROM A CHRISTIAN REPUBLIC INTO A SOCIALIST ANTI‑CHRIST DEMOCRACY, both in law and in fact.

Why do you think that in America today "May Day" is celebrated as "Law Day?" The answer is because what was done in Russia through wholesale murder is being accomplished here through the process of statutory legislation. They are both revolutionary processes; one is just quieter than the other and has the advantage of stealth. How is this being accomplished? First, the socialists in this nation had to convert the constitutions of the several states from their common law [Christian] form to the socialist [anti‑ Christ] form of republic:

   1). By removing the indivisible "nation" principle; that is, the recognition of free whites as a citizenry, thereby destroying the principle of one race                   indivisible and unmixed; and,

   2). By removing the common law jurisdiction from the courts which:

       a). gave particular recognition to and enforced the rights of that citizenry; and

       b). recognized Christian doctrine as the standard whereby justice was to be measured and decreed; and

   3). Neutralize the common law jurisdiction of the counties and cities/towns; and

   4). Remove all State militias; and,

   5). By bringing state government under the full power of one branch and making it the "highest organ of state power."

The Socialists/Communists, if they believe in any thing at all, believe in Satan's form of government; one master with sole control. Satan's government demands total centralization of all power, authority and responsibility. But that isn't all. It also demands wholesale miscegenation; mixing of the races. Satan's government always demands the destruction of that which God has created and separated and it is always based upon the egalitarian principles of internationalism; especially where the White Race is concerned. Satan loves confusion. Our Father loves order. Our Father says that miscegenation is confusion and an abomination. Miscegenation is confusion and is forbidden by God.

"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast [dark races] to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you" [41]

For a second witness:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." [42]

It is appalling to examine the limits that Bible teachers will go to in their efforts to make a place in Scripture of interracial marriage. Every Scripture in the Bible is carefully scrutinized to make room for race mixing. These false apostles of Satan's kingdom will do anything to make it appear that the Word of God commends race mixing.

If you believe what the modern clergy preach, you will believe that Adam and Eve might have been black and white. You would believe that Asenath, wife of Joseph, Zipporah, wife of Moses, Rachab, wife of Salmon, and other leading women of Scripture were black or some other color. The American clergy appears to derive some special pleasure out of turning the Holy Bible into a racial polyglot of twisted and confusing bloodlines that end up merging all races into one fully integrated and mingled people. These preachers of mix and mate, love and amalgamate go to any end to promote interracial dating, marriage and social relationships. IN FACT, IF THIS WERE TRUE, THERE WOULD BE NO WHITE RACE, NO BLACK RACE AND NO ORENTIAL RACE!

The miscegenation mania in the pulpit, in the pew, throughout America, and now appearingthe the remnant pulpit is cause for grave concern. Blood pollution is forever; it's irreversible. We can rebuild the foundations of a collapsed economy. The rotting political infrastructure of America can be restored amid fasting, prayer, and Bible reconstruction. A resolution for our social problems can, in time, be found. But if we pollute our blood amid the sin of miscegenation and reduce the purity of our White Race and every race to bland gray, America will be finished forever. Every base nation on earth today results fromthe fusion of the primary builder race, the White Race, with the help of the other races not through race mixing. The browning of Egypt, Greece, North Africa, India, Peru, and other nations resulted from race mixing. Those who fail to live by the Biblical Law of racial purity will be judged in the eternal loss of the genetic foundations upon which nations are built.

Never realizing that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Almighty God because of sodomy and race mixing.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh [having sex and marrying those of other races], are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." [43]; "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son." [44]; "...I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people." [45]; " shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." [46]

Satan's form of government will not and cannot tolerate individual responsibility and liberty, nor will it tolerate their mandatory corollaries: purity, cleanliness and obedience to God. A citizen in Satan's government has no responsibility and no liberty; only the duties of a slave under compelled performance. By way of contrast, our Father's form of government is founded upon the principle of total decentralization with complete individual responsibility and self‑government; that is, unfettered liberty with corresponding responsibilities and duties, but no compelled performance except by contract. Our Father's government demands complete separation of the races. Satan's government demands mixing of the races. Satan's government also allows, encourages and finances the destruction of your children and would‑be grand children through abortion. Think about the contrasts in that. Satan is the destroyer and he persuades you to exercise your own free will and destroy yourself by going after "strange flesh" and "evil practices." What is abortion if it isn't ritual murder and child sacrifice?

The principles of the Father's word demand separation in all things as a prerequisite to achieving order and harmony. Satan demands the mixing of all things as a prerequisite to achieving confusion and ultimately your destruction. One of Satan's ancient names is "the chaos monster." The name perfectly describes his nature and purpose. But the choice is always yours and it is always couched in terms of whether you will or will not obey the Father's Law. In other words, your free will is still intact and the test of it is the willingness of your heart to adhere to and obey the Father's law as the focal point and guide for your life. For it is our own disobedience to the Father's Life Law that has allowed the Social­ists Communists to dismantle our Christian Republic. The Socialists/Communists are accomplishing the implementation of Satan's form of government and all the necessary steps thereto [listed above] through their understanding and manipulation of Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution for the United States of America.

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive [when the Legislature cannot be convened] against domestic Violence." [47]

Notice that our constitution does not say what kind of "republic" Congress must guarantee. Obviously that was left to the several states to establish.

But our constitution did organize and establish the government upon the principle of three co‑equal branches thereby indicating that our republics were to be Christian in both form and function.

    "Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, THE RELIGION OF LIBERTY. Montesquieu has remarked, THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS A STRANGER TO MERE DESPOTIC POWER..." [48]; "America stands as a model which other nations will carefully copy, in due time, as they can adapt themselves and change their institutions. There may be no literal copy or close formal imitation; but there is little doubt that the spirit and true sense of our Declaration of Independence will finally mould the structure and control the workings of all governments...

     Our people are busy using their liberties and energies, each for his individual benefit, as is quite right and proper; since the welfare of individuals makes the prosperity of the community. But a government left to take care of itself {as ours has been} is prone to do that work only too well. We have done well and wisely in important crises; but a more intelligent and constant watchfulness over the ordinary course of public affairs would have been still better.

     Knowledge is power, when wisely applied; and a more accurate acquaintance with their government and its history will enable American Citizens to mould it more wisely still, to correct all defects of administration, and to speedily reach that minimum of governmental interference with the efforts and interests of the citizens which shall give them the fullest liberty consistent with security and surrender the whole round of human life, as completely as possible to the beneficent action of natural law...

     Thus we find the spirit of progress traversing the whole course of human history, constantly advancing through all the confusion of rising and falling states, of battle, siege and slaughter, of victory and defeat; through the varying fortunes and ultimate extinction of monarchy, republic, and empire; through barbaric irruption and desolation, feudal isolation, spiritual supremacy, the heroic rush and conflict of the Cross and the Crescent; amid the busy hum of industry, through the marts of trade and behind the gliding keels of commerce; through the bloody conflicts of commons, nobles, kings and kaisers to New and Free America. The Englishman, the German, the Frenchman, the Italian, the Scandinavian, the Asiatic, and the African all meet as equals. There they are free to speak, to think and to act. They bring the common contributions of character, energy and activity to the support and enlargement of a common country, and the spread of its influence and enlightenment through all the lands of their origin." [49]

The Christian foundations of our Republican form of government are further attested to by the fact that [according to Justice Story and numerous other authorities] the First Amendment only protects Christianity.

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; BUT TO EXCLUDE ALL RIVALRY AMONG CHRISTIAN SECTS, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the EXCLUSIVE patronage of the national government." [50]; "Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, a for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines of worship of those imposters." [51]

And to that list of "imposters" you can add the Jews and all their Talmudic filth and mayhem. Thus, we come to two points. Firstly, in order to claim the protection of the Amendment, the sect in question had to be Christian. The Amendment extended no protection whatsoever to any other religion.

Secondly, in order to substantiate the claim to being "Christian," the beliefs of the sect had to be founded upon acceptance of the divinity of Jesus the Christ, had to be grounded in both the Old and New Testaments, and had to adhere to the principle of "three in one." The logical implications of the latter fully presupposed the first two. Therefore, a professed belief in the Christian principle of A TRIUNE GOD was the basic test as to religious conviction and the right to hold office. What of the numerous denominations within Christianity with so many varied tenets and beliefs? How do we take their measure and ascertain whether or not they may be cloaked with the protective mantle of the constitution? Let's look at the definition of the word "denomination:"

"A class, society or collection of individuals called by the same name; as in a denomination of Christians..." [52]

Here is the point: as a matter of constitutional law, the word "Christian" can only refer to those denominations that hold and adhere to the basic doctrine of one God in three persons and find the authority for their faith in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. Thus, if a sect calls itself "Christian" but does not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, then it does not qualify for protection and can claim no guarantees under the First Article of the Bill of Rights.

IN OTHER WORDS, WITHOUT THE DOCTRINE OF THREE IN ONE, SUCH A SECT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION WITHIN THE EYES OF THE LAW BECAUSE THEIR TENETS ARE CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROFESSED DOCTRINES OF FAITH WHICH ESTABLISHED OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND GAVE IT LIFE! Of course interpretations of the Bible might vary from denomination to denomination but they must, in order to be accepted as Christian in terms of constitutional law, hold to that one fundamental belief and all the implications that logically flow from it.

Go back and look again at the confession of faith required by Article 22 of the original Delaware Constitution. Read carefully these words:

" God the Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore..."

This is the testimony of our forefathers as to the path they followed. The evidence of their faith and discipline is all about us. We need but open our eyes and look.

"It [Christianity] was part of the common law 'so far that any person reviling, subverting or ridiculing it might be prosecuted at common law,' as Lord Mansfield has declared; because, in the judgment of our English ancestors and their judicial tribunals, HE WHO REVILED, SUBVERTED OR RIDICULED CHRISTIANITY, DID AN ACT WHICH STRUCK AT THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR CIVIL SOCIETY, and tended by its necessary consequences as they believed, to disturb that common peace of the land of which...the common law was the preserver...To sustain the soundness of their opinion, their descendants point us to the tears and blood of revolutionary France during the reign of terror, when infidelity triumphed and the abrogation of the Christian faith was succeeded by the worship of the goddess of reason, and they aver that WITHOUT THIS RELIGION NO NATION HAS EVER YET CONTINUED FREE. THEY INSIST TOO, THAT ALL HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT NO NATION WITHOUT THE LIGHT OF THEIR COMMON LAW, HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO PRESERVE ANY SYSTEM OF RATIONAL AND WELL REGU­LATED LIBERTY." [53]

     "It is remarkable how men of comprehensive views, and free from sectarian bias, have agreed with regard to The Republicanism of Christianity. 'Christianity,' says Montesquieu, 'is a stranger to despotic power.' 'The religion,' says De Tocqueville, '...which declares that all are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. Religion is the companion of liberty in all its battles and all its conflicts; the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims.' 'The friends of liberty in France are accustomed to speaking in enthusiastic commendation of the Republicanism of the Scriptures.' The Abbe' de la Mennais, acknowledge as one of the most powerful minds in Europe, little as he regards Christianity as a revelation from God, familiarly speaks of its Author as 'The Great Republican.' Our own De Witt Clinton said, 'Christianity, in its essence, its doctrines, and its forms, is republican.'...

     The tendency of the True Gospel principles is to bring the most absolute despotism under the limits of law; to imbue limited monarchies more and more with the spirit of popular institutions; to prepare the people to govern themselves; and finally to establish everywhere the spirit and the reality, if not the very forms of a republic.

     Let us turn once more to the republican features of the churches organized by the Apostles. These churches had officers, which were to be regarded and observed, in their proper sphere, as much as the officers of any other republic. But the manner of their ruling was not to be as 'Lords over God's heritage;' 'Whosoever will be chief among you,' said the Savior, 'let him be your servant.'

     The Apostles themselves gave several striking illustrations of their regard for popular rights. The first public act of the Church, after our Lord's Ascension, was the choice of an Apostle in the place of Judas {The Traitor ‑‑ The only 'Jew' among them}. Peter stands up in the midst of the disciples ‑ the number of names together was about one hundred and twenty ‑ and proposes the matter. The election is made by the body of the Church...

     The accurate historian Mosheim thus states the conclusions to which his own mind came after a most thorough investigation. 'In these primitive times... the highest authority was in the people, or the whole body of Christians; for even the Apostles themselves inculcated by their example, that nothing of moment was to be done or determined but with the knowledge and consent of the brother­hood...The people did everything that is proper for those in whom the supreme power of the community is vested.'

     Neander, the most distinguished ecclesiastical historian of the present day, says, 'Each individual Church which had a Bishop or Presbyter of its own, assumed to itself the form and rights of a little distinct republic or commonwealth; and with regard to its internal concerns, was wholly regulated by a code of laws, that, if they did not originate with, had at least received the sanction of the people constituting such Church.'" [54]

The Constitution for the United States of America was intended to be read and interpreted so that it would harmonize with itself. One provision was not to overturn or conflict with another. Something like "...a house divided cannot stand" seems to be appropriate to define the principle. The deceiver began to distort the meaning of Article IV, Section 4, by telling our People that they could establish republics in the states that were not Christian in form, e.g., governments where the legislature is the "highest organ of state power." [Note: some of today's state constitutions even allow the legislature to amend the constitution without a vote of the people].

The key to dispelling the lie about Article IV, Section 4, is to show that historically, when petitioning for admission to the Union, each state submitted constitutions establishing the three co‑equal branch form of government as a prerequisite to admission. That is to say, to become a state in the Union, the People thereof submitted constitutions that by design made each branch equivalent in power, while exercising different functions.

     "The mischievous doctrines of Rousseau had found few readers and fewer admirers among the Americans. The Principles upon which their Revolution was conducted were those of Sidney and Locke." [55]; "Locke, in particular, was the authority to whom the Patriots paid greatest deference. He was the most famous of seventeenth century democratic theorists, and his ideas had their due weight with the colonists. Almost every writer seems to have been influenced by him, many quoted his words, and the argument of others shows the unmistakable imprint of his philosophy.

     The first great speech of Otis was wholly based upon Locke's ideas; Samuel Adams, on the 'Rights of the Colonists as Men and as British Subjects,' followed the same model. Many of the phrases of the Declaration of Independence may be found in Locke's Treatise; there is hardly any important writer of this time who does not openly refer to Locke, or tacitly follow the lead he had taken. The argument in regard to the limitations upon Parliament was taken from Locke's reflections on the 'supreme legislature' and the necessary restrictions upon its authority.

     No one stated more strongly than did he the basis for the doctrine that 'taxation without representation is tyranny.' No better epitome of the Revolution­ary  theory could be found than in John Locke on civil government." [56]


At the adoption of the United States Constitution, the States and the people vested a very limited portion of their sovereignty in the newly born United States Government. The Constitution of the United States was proposed adopted and ratified by "We the People," which were composed of only free White persons, for our mutual defense, as a nation [Race]. The assent to the Constitution was necessarily made by those deemed sovereign, that is to say, by the sovereign body. [57]

"We the People of the United States, in order and ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [58]; " becomes necessary for one assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." [59]; "The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our Republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representa­tives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty." [60]; " that time [it] was perfectly understood to be confined to the White Race; and that they alone constituted the sovereignty of the Government." [61]; "The period, countrymen, is already come ...This day we are called upon to give a glorious example of what the wisest and best of men were rejoiced to view, only in speculation...Immortal spirits of {Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and all the prophets} Hampden, Locke and Sidney! Will it not add to your benevolent joys to behold your posterity rising to the dignity of men, and evincing to the world the reality and expedience of your systems..." [62]; "... without liberty and equality, there cannot exist that tranquility of mind which results form the assurance of every citizen that his own personal safety and rights are secure. This, I think is a sentiment of the celebrated Montesquieu, and it is the end and design of all free and lawful governments." [63]

The Preamble people enumerated in the introduction to the Federal Constitution of the Christian White households living within the various Sovereign States, though it will be denied by many, more especially the Children of Satan ‑‑ who are the Enemies of both Christ and the United States:


"It is certainly very material that the true doctrines of liberty, as exemplified in our political systems, should be inculcated on those who are to sustain and may administer it ...Sidney and Locke are admirably calculat­ed to impress on young minds the right of nations to establish their own governments, and to inspire a love of free ones..." [64]

Our political, educational and spiritual institutions were established by the moral‑legal standards of the Great Book of Divine Truth.

In 1789, the Lord Jesus Christ was considered the King of America; the people, for the most part, were Christians; the civil and Eccleiastical leaders were Christian Men who feared God and revered the Bible.

Most of the governments of the world have preached, but never practiced some of the Ten Commandments. All have enforced against their citizens laws against theft and murder. But they have not themselves abided by these ethical principles. All of the ancient and modern dictatorships; All tyrannical and oppressive governments, even the Communist ones ‑‑ have been based upon a vicious double standard of ethics.

The un‑Christian principle that the citizen shall respect the life and license of the governing despots, but that the governing despots shall not be bound to respect the life and liberty of its citizens. For a citizen to cheat the government is everywhere a crime against the state: but where, except under the American Constitution, is it illegal for the government to confiscate the property or life of the citizen at the will of the governing elite.

Where except in America do we find the Command­ments, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" recognized and revered as a Higher Law, issuing from a Divine Lawgiver, with which our human lawmakers may not tamper with or transgress? Even in England or Canada, man‑ made law is supreme. Parliament's power is, abso­lute, even against common rights and reason.

     "In every government there are three sorts of power:

   1). The legislative;

   2). The executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and

   3). The executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law.

     By virtue of the first, the prince of magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have already been enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the state. The political liberty of the subject is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another. When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or n the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

     Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

     There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolution, and of trying the causes of individuals..." [65]


When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt it is obvious that they had tribal leaders. Which were, basically, the equivalent to our present day Senate. Although the powers they had and the functions they performed are somewhat obscure, Their qualifications are laid out in Exodus 18:18‑22:

"Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetous-ness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee."

By studying 1 Kings 4:21 we can see that every tribe and every city had its senate of princes or elders, as well as a more popular assembly, which was the equivalent of our house of representatives. This it would appear, is essential to every well‑balanced free government. That ancient Israel had a government with its elders [senate] and representatives [captains or officers] is proven by a study of the following scriptures, Numbers 11:16; 24‑25 and Exodus 24:1, 9.

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee...And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease."; "And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off...Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel."

These leaders are necessary to check the rashness and undue haste in the actions of the people. In a study of history, it is found that every free government has always had a senate of some kind [though such an assembly has been called by many names]; to balance the power of the people; to attend to matters of public business and to propose measures of state for action by the more popular branch of government. There is no doubt the ancient Republic of Israel had such councils of this sort, is made certain by the frequent references in the scriptures making reference to the princes, officers, captains and elders of Israel; and the clear distinction between those men and the congregation ‑‑ the general public.

There is very little doubt, this form of leadership was instigated during their stay in Egypt. Because during the exodus from Egypt, it is apparent there were chiefs of tribes and heads of the various clans which formed a council of state ‑‑ a kind of provisional senate. They were regarded and addressed as men of authority, and is evident from a statement made to Moses by a brother Israelite: "who made thee a prince and a judge over us?" [66] It is, also apparent that these men of authority formed an organized body since Moses addressed them, not as princes of particular tribes, but as elders of Israel. [67]

With careful study, we see that when the Israelites left Egypt, they did so in organized hosts or armies.

"And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt ...And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies." [68]

Thus, it is evident they did not leave as a confused and disorderly rabble, but marched in battalions, each under its own officers and its own standards or ensigns [flags]. But, we also, must keep in mind that the Israelites left Egypt in a great haste, and it would have been impossible for them to go in hosts, or armies; had there not been men previously known, respected and recognized as their leaders: chosen from among themselves. Otherwise the Israelites would not have known under what standard they were to march, nor which particular officers or leaders they were to follow. Obviously, it would not have been practicable to organize an army of more than two and one‑half million people at the time of departure.

Therefore, it is very clear, as we previously pointed out, the Israelites were yet in Egypt, the princes of the tribes were acknowledged as leaders of the tribes; the chiefs of families as sub‑ordinate officers. commanding their respective clans. In all likelihood, it was the same men, who, at the giving of the law, were summoned to go up with Moses and Aaron, unto the Lord. [69] What places it out of all doubt, that these officers were an organized body and acted as a council of state or senate, is a law related in Numbers 10:1‑4.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And if they blow but with one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee."

When both of them were blown, the entire congregation [all of the people] were to assemble; but when only one of them was blown, the princes and heads of Israel [70] were to come together for the dispatch of public business. A detailed account of the organization of the Israelite government is given in Numbers Chapter Eleven. It is from there we can see where the age limit for men who hold public office came from. The candidate for senatorial office must be of the people; he must be an elder of the people and he must have been previously elected or appointed by the people to some public trust. [71]

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years..." [72]

The seventy men of the elders [senate] of the people and officers were to be brought to the tabernacle of the congregation, that they might stand there with Moses.

In other words they were to be solemnly inaugurated and consecrated to this service, that they might be a permanent council, to assist Moses in governing the people. Yet these men were not chosen by God alone. That the people concurred in the election of these men is evident from the scriptures given above. It is further evident Moses was not charged with appointing the senate, but only with assembling it.

It must, also, be borne in mind, that the senate was not the government itself; it was only a part of the nation, the legislative part, of the general population. With that information we can also see that the people themselves were considered the actual government. And elected representatives [senate and representa­tives] to take care of day to day business, just as the people of America do today. For in all important questions, its decisions were to be submitted to the congregation, who, by its approbation, enacted them into laws. That this is true, we have a clear proof related in the Twentieth Chapter of Judges, where the ancient Israelites are recorded to have called upon the general assembly of the people to deliberate upon the matter and make their decision.

Even when they demanded a king, they did not wish to change this portion of the laws, so the king's authority was not to be allowed to be despotic nor arbitrary. The senate, was composed of the most distinguished members of all the tribes, and served the king as a council. Much the same as the senate today serves the president.

The king took their advice in all important affairs; and if anything occurred which was of interest to the entire nation the congregation, that is to say, an assembly of the general public was called. The senate proposed, the congregation decided, and the king executed. This is where the authority of our president to be the chief executive officer and the head of the justice department originated.


It is an undisputed fact, that there was a popular branch in the ancient Israeli government, a house of representatives, if you will. This body has been called by many different titles: the congregation; the congregation of Israel; all the assembly; all the children of Israel or the whole congregation of the Lord. As previously stated Moses was directed to make two silver trumpets and to blow them one or both for different purposes. [73]

In the opinion of Michaleis, the Israelites did not vote as the American people do: But by known representatives. His presentation in support of his views seem to be conclusive:

     "From various passages in the Pentateuch, we find that Moses, at making known any laws, had to convene the whole congregation of Israel; and in like manner, in the book of Joshua, we see, that when diets were held, the whole congregation were assembled. If, on such occasions, every individual had had to give his vote, everything would certainly have been democratic in the highest degree; but it is scarcely conceivable how, without very particular regulations made for the purpose, order could not have been preserved in an assembly of six hundred thousand men, their votes accurately numbered, and acts of violence prevented.

     If, however, we consider that, while Moses is said to have spoken to the whole congregation, he could not possible be heard by six hundred thousand people [74] all our fears and difficulties will vanish; for this circumstance alone must convince any one, that Moses could only have addressed himself to a certain number of persons, deputed to represent the rest of the Israelites, Accordingly, in Number. 1:16, we find mention of such men.

     In contradistinction to the common Israelites, they are there nominated 'those wont to be called to the convention.' In the 16th chapter of the same book, verse 2, they are styled 'princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.' I [call your] notice [to] this passage particularly, because it appears, that two hundred and fifty persons of this description, who rose up against Moses, and become to him objects of extreme terror; which they could not have been, if their voices had not been, at the same time, the voices of their families and tribes. Still more explicit, and to the point, is the passage, Deuteronomy 29:10, where Moses, in a speech to the whole people, says, 'Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes [chief men of the tribes] your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel. Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water.' Now as Moses could not possible speak loud enough to be heard by two and one‑half million people it must be evident, that the first‑named men represented the people, to whom they again repeated the words of Moses. Whether these representatives were on occasion obliged to collect and declare the sentiments of their constituents, or whether, like the members of the Congress, they acted in the scope of their own power for the general good, without taking instructions from their constituents, I find no where expressly determined; but, methinks, from a perusal of the Bible, I can scarcely doubt, that the latter was the case. Who these representatives were, may, in some measure, be understood from Joshua 23:2 and 24:1. They would seem to have been of two sorts. To some, their office as judges gave them a right to appear in the assembly; and these were not necessarily of the same family in which they exercised that office. Others again, had a seat and a voice in the diet, as the heads of families."

The particular construction of the representatives of the Israelite government, as to the men who comprised it, is really not important. The important part is what function and power that body of men exercised. These were of a grave and important kind, which was to show the sovereignty of the people under their form of government. An instance of the power these representatives had is evident in the story of Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14:24‑25.

It is of interest to note that the people did not rescue Jonathan by force or violence; the rescue was effected by petition. It was the voice of authority, clear and strong in an expression of undenied right. Neither was the expression, "there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground," an act of mutiny or rebellion, it was simply a statement of authority. Authority that even the king appears not to wish to oppose. Therefore, we are left with the conclusion, it was an exercise of rightful authority, whereby the unconscious offender was pardoned, and the sentence of death was reversed by the representatives of the tribes of Israel. That it was, indeed, the representatives of the people is seen by the statement: "Draw ye near hither, all the chief of the people."


Because the president is the chief executive officer, responsible for the enforcement of the laws passed by the legislative, and to conserve space we are combining these two functions together. Also, in the early days before Israel had kings the judges were, in effect, the president of the Israel Republic. Moses did not issue an express law which unalterably determined what sort of civil officer the executive authority of the Israelitish state should be lodged with. On the contrary, he provided before hand for a change in the form of government and the title or prerogatives or exclusive rights or privileges of its head [President ‑ King] in a manner which would prevent the horror of a civil war.

Which proved to be the case several hundred years later when the Israelites changed their form of government, from a Republican form to a regal form; without bloodshed or commotion. An event unparalled by any other state or country in history. Still, we must face the fact, Moses was far from being indifferent in regards to the name and powers of the civil head of the state. His [Moses'] chief magistrate was a republican president, who had the title of judge, or rather, as Jahn says, governor, who was elected by the people. Moses also knew Israel would ask for a king.

"When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother...neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel." [75]

During the course of this presentation, you will notice we use the words "president" and "magistrate" interchangeably. The New World Dictionary states:

"Magistrate: a civil officer empowered to administer the law: the President of the United States is sometimes called the chief magistrate."

It would appear that Moses knew how difficult it is to control power once handed or entrusted to the hands of an individual. Moses wanted to develop an executive who would respond to, and answer to the people, without exercising a despotic power. However, many writers such as Harrington (Commonwealth of Israel); Fleury (Manners of the Ancient Israelites); Lewish (Antiquities of the Hebrew Republic); Michaelis (Comment on the Laws of Moses); Smith (Hebrew People) and Dupin (History of the Canon), believed the judges of Israel were all extraordinary magistrates, not unlike the dictators of ancient Rome.

Joshua 1:12‑15 and 16‑18 are the passages that spell out most clearly the power the children allowed the chief judges to have. In ancient Israel the powers of president and supreme court justice was combined in one office. And a review of the first two and most powerful judges over Israel; Moses and Joshua, reveals some interesting facts.

   A). Just as our present day federal judges, the judges held their office for life.

   B). The office was not hereditary. Which seems to have been what Moses intended, because he took no steps to perpetuate the office or have the office          handed down to his descendants [and neither are present day judgeships hereditary]. Nor yet to hand the office down to those within his own tribe. It        appears he was only interested in the qualifications of his successor; that he was fit for the office. That the man be upright, patriotic, believe and               trust in God, zealous and an able chief magistrate. Joshua, the immediate successor of Moses who was of the tribe of Levi, of Ephraim; Othniel was          of Judah; Ehud of Benjamin; Deborah of Naphtali; Gideon of Manasseh; and Samuel of Levi. The other judges were of several different tribes and            when all died, their children remained among the common people; and no more is related about them.

   C). However, unlike the federal judges of today, which have through the efforts of the anti‑Christs, degenerated into political appointments, the judges           of that day were elected. The approval of God was sought along with the high priest and all the congregation. This is distinctly recorded to have                occurred in respect to Joshua in Numbers 28:19, 22. Jephthah was chosen by popular vote in Judges 11:4‑11. Samuel was elected to office in an                 assembly of the congregation of Israel in 1 Samuel 7:5‑8. Thus we can safely assume the other judges were chosen for office in the same manor.

   D). In ancient Israel the judges exercised the same powers, in regard to the military as our president, in that they were regarded as the commander‑               in‑chief. There can be no doubt that Moses and Joshua exercised this authority. God instructed Moses to put some of his honor upon him [76]; so that           the congregation of the children of Israel would obey him. That the people accepted Joshua is made clear in Joshua 1:12‑15; 16‑18.

When studying the lives of the judges it is discovered that most were the head of an army and delivered their country and people from foreign oppression and were elevated to their office as a reward for their military exploits. However, some were clearly not military leaders; Samuel and Eli were two of these. Deborah as a judge held court under a palm tree [77] prior to planning the war against Jabin. It is unclear if Jair, Ibzan, Elon or Abdon ever held any military command during their tenure in office. The judges are also mentioned in connection with the high priests, as arbitrators of civil controversies such as in Deuteronomy 17:9, 12.

   E). A resistance to the lawful authority and orders of the judges was considered treason; punishable by death [78].

This was consonant to reason and justice because the chief authority, in both military and civil affairs were vested in him; as a result he represented the entire congregation of the children of Israel. So rebellion against him was considered as rebellion against the nation itself. Which has been considered, by all governments, as an act of mutiny punishable by death. But at the same time, their power was not absolute or unlimited. Their power was restrained by God Himself. This is clearly evident in the appointment of Joshua as a judge over Israel. In Numbers 27:21, he is told to stand before Eleazar the priest, who was to ask counsel of him, after the judgment of Urim before the Lord. Clearly they were to follow the counsel of a True man of God.

Another limitation to their authority was the law itself. Their power could not, with impunity, be stretched beyond its legal bounds. This is demonstrated by the address of the people to Joshua, upon his accession to the position as the judge over Israel. When they said, in effect, they would be obedient to him, provided he would obey the Law of God [79].

This was the arrangement of Israel's government as provided by Almighty God through Moses. For God's hand is clearly shown in a message given by Moses and recorded in Deuteronomy 17:14‑20. Which shows that God had told him Israel would someday demand an earthly king. Thus rejecting God as their king. So Israel was at liberty, whenever it so desired, to go from a republican form of government to a regal one. The king was to be chosen by the voice [vote] of the congregation; but they were to seek the counsel of God through the high priest. The king was to be a native Israelite; he was forbidden the multiplication of horses; he was forbidden to have many wives; he was not to lead the people out of their land; he was not to enrich himself.

He was also to write down a copy of the Laws of God in a book from the laws as kept before the priests and the Levites and he was to study those laws every day of his life, so that he would learn to fear the Lord. The Law of God was to be the rule of government and upon following those conditions the throne was to be hereditary in his family.

The qualifications for Present of the United States is found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4; the keeping of records in a book so‑to‑speak, is found in Article 1, Section 7. In an effort to limit the President's ability to enrich himself; the heaping to himself of much silver and gold is provided for in Article 1, Section 7. And the limitations of Presidential [governmental] powers are spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights.

The king was to be gracious and condescending towards his subjects. He was to look upon his people, not only as equals, but also as brethren. We find, through a study of history, the best kings and president cherishing these sentiments, and acting upon them. When David addressed his people, he rose before them, and used this affection form of address:

"Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people..." [80]

President George Washington replied to Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Congress, who had been appointed by Congress to carry to Washington the official information of his unanimous election to the office of President:

"I have been accustomed to pay so much respect to the opinion of my fellow‑citiz­ens that the knowledge of their having given their unanimous suffrages in my favor scarcely leaves me the alternative for an option. I can not, I believe, give a greater evidence of my sensibility of the honor which they have done me than by accepting the appointment." [81]

Then in his very first Inaugural Address, Washington stated:

     "Among the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice [the peoples' voice] I can never hear but with veneration and love...Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that ALMIGHTY BEING WHO RULES OVER THE UNIVERSE, WHO PRESIDES IN THE COUNCILS OF NATIONS, AND WHOSE PROVIDENTIAL AIDS CAN SUPPLY EVERY HUMAN DEFECT, THAT HIS BENEDICTION MAY CONSECRATE TO THE LIBERTIES AND HAPPINESS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to His charge. In tendering this homage to THE GREAT AUTHOR OF EVERY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GOOD, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow‑citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore THE INVISIBLE HAND WHICH CONDUCTS THE AFFAIRS OF MEN MORE THAN THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES.

     Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential Agency ...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious SMILES OF HEAVEN can ever be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which HEAVEN ITSELF HAS ORDAINED [Washington acknowledges his and America's subservience to God's Laws] and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are just considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people...I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to THE BENIGN PARENT OF THE HUMAN RACE IN HUMBLE SUPPLICATION THAT, SINCE HE HAS BEEN PLEASED TO FAVOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR DELIBERATING IN PERFECT TRANQUILLITY, AND DISPOSITIONS FOR DECIDING WITH UNPARALLELED UNANIMITY ON A FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE SECURITY OF THEIR UNION AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF THEIR HAPPINESS [ownership of land], SO HIS DIVINE BLESSING MAY BE EQUALLY CONSPICUOUS IN THE EN­LARGED VIEWS, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend." [82]

We could go on for hundreds of pages, pointing out different laws or statutes and sections of the founding documents described and laid out in the scriptures. The efforts of the anti‑God, anti‑Christs, anti‑Christians, and anti‑Americans to conceal this information by writing one so‑called translation of the scriptures after another notwithstanding.

[1] Rev. A.W. Foljambe, January 5, 1876.

[2] Runkel vs. Winemiller, et al, 4 H & McH. (1799).

[3] John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695).

[4] A.G. 014.33 (4-28-28).

[5] Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists (1772).

[6] 1 Timothy 2:9‑14.

[7] Romans 13:3‑4.

[8] 2 Chronicles 7:14.

[9] Romans 13.

[10] Genesis 9:3‑6; Romans 1; 1 Timothy 2:1‑2.

[11] 1‑2 Kings.

[12] So join your local militia and prepare to defend our country and people against its enemies.

[13] James Wilson, Study of Law in the United States (1790‑91).

[14] Works of Fisher Ames, W.B. Allen; Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1983 (1854), pp. 297‑298, Vol. I.

[15] John 1:17.

[16] Selected Writings of Lord Action, J. Rufus Pears; Liberty Classics, (1985), p. 7, Vol. 1.

[17] Selected Writings of Lord Action, J. Rufus Pears; Liberty Classics, (1985), p. 9, Vol. 1.

[18] John Locke, Of Civil‑Government (1689).

[19] Richard S. Patterson and Richardson Dougal, The Eagle and the Shield: A History of the Great Seal of the United States, Washington; U.S. Department of State, 1976, p. 16.

[20] Julian P. Boyd, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 Vols. Princeton University Press, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 492.

[21] Julian P. Boyd, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 Vols. Princeton University Press, 1950, Vol. 2, p. 504.

[22] Samuel Adams, Boston, October 4, 1790.

[23] The State vs. Chandler, 2 Del 553, @ 555, 556 (1837).

[24] The State vs. Chandler, 2 Del 553, @ 555, 556.

[25] Wylly vs. Collins, 9 Ga 223, @ 237 (1851).

[26] The Rise of the Republic of the United States, by Richard Frothingham (1890).

[27] Spirit of Laws.

[28] Judges 17:6; 21:25.

[29] Joshua Jehouda, l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde, pp. 135-136; Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 30-31.

[30] National Jewish Information Service, 6412 W. Olympic Blvd. L.A. CA.

[31] The People vs. Ruggles, 8 Johnsons NY Common Law Reports 290, @ 294, 295.

[32] Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant & Rawles Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports 400.

[33] 1 Bl.Com.42.

[34] Bell vs. The State, 1 Swan (Tenn) 42, @ 44 (1851).

[35] Strauss vs. Strauss 3 So 2d 727, @ 728 (1941).

[36] Runkel vs. Winemiller, et. al., 4 Hc. Mch.

[37] Article 22, Delaware Constitution (1776).

[38] Galatians 6:7.

[39] Ch. III, art. 30, (1939).

[40] U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. X, art. 124, (1939).

[41] Leviticus 18:23‑24.

[42] Deuteronomy 32:8‑9.

[43] Judges 1:7.

[44] Deuteronomy 7:3.

[45] Leviticus 20:24.

[46] Exodus 33:16.

[47] Article IV, Section 4, Constitution for the United States of America (1787).

[48] Commentar­ies on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, Vol. III, De Capo Press Reprints (1970) @ 724, 725.

[49] The Footprints of Time, Charles Bancroft (1979).

[50] Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, Vol. 1, De Capo Press Reprints (1970) @ 443, 444.

[51] The People vs. Ruggles, 8 Johnsons NY Common Law Reports 290, @ 294, 295.

[52] American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1828).

[53] The State vs. Chandler, 2 Del 553, @ 557, 558.

[54] The Puritans and Their Principles (1846).

[55] John Fiske.

[56] A History of American Political Theories, (1903).

[57] See Dread Scott vs. Sandford 19 How. 393 (1857); Preamble U.S. Const. Declaration of Independence.

[58] Preamble U.S. Constitution.

[59] Declaration of Independence.

[60] Dred Scott vs. Sandford 19 How. 393 @ 404.

[61] Dread Scott vs. Sandford 19 How. 393 @ 420.

[62] Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776.

[63] Samuel Adams, Address to the Massachusetts Legislature (1794).

[64] James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (1825).

[65] The Spirit of Laws, by Montesquieu (1900).

[66] Exodus 11:14.

[67] Exodus 12:21, 28.

[68] Exodus 12:41, 51.

[69] Exodus 24:1.

[70] Exodus 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24‑25.

[71] Numbers 11:16‑17; 24‑26.

[72] Constitution Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3.

[73] Numbers 10:2‑4.

[74] Actually when ALL the people were assembled, it would have numbered more than two and one‑half million people, and what human voice could be sufficiently strong enough to be heard over such a distance and the natural noise which would be generated by such numbers of people?

[75] Deuteronomy 17:13-20.

[76] Numbers 27:20.

[77] Judges 4:5.

[78] Deuteronomy 17:12 and Joshua 1:18.

[79] Joshua 1:17.

[80] 1 Chronicles 28:2.

[81] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p. 47.

[82] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, President George Washington's First Inaugural Address, City of New York, April 30, 1789, pp. 51‑54.

Reference Materials