����������������� America Was A Christian Nation
���������������������������������������������������� Preface
The original Hebrew Israelite nation, formed at Mount Siani, was the first Monotheistic Republican governmental system. The second was the United States of America with its "Theocratic Constitutional Republic." The Hebrew system of government began with one man as the personal and direct administrator of the Divine God himself making all decisions concerning civil law and religious practices.
"And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws." (Exodus 18:14‑16)
This power was later delegated to the heads of the families, heads of the various tribes, and a parliament of 70 elders with all unresolvable problems decided upon by Moses himself as the direct administrator of God.
"How can I [Moses] myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes [elect Senators and Representatives], and I will make them rulers over you... So I [Moses] took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons to judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's; and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do." (Deuteronomy 1:12‑18)
The Christian concept derived directly from the Hebrew Holy Writ was the next ingredient added to the monotheistic governing process and this is where the Theocratic Constitutional Republic form of limited government of the people, by the people, and for the people originated from, Creating the United States of America.
Israelite System of Government Typical of Christianity. The entire Israelite system is a typical one. It is chronologically divided into seven periods, beginning with the fathers, the Judges, the Kings and back to a Republic to eventually culminate with our King of Kings and Lord of Lords taking His rightful place as the King of Israel, over regathered Israel.
The United States of America. As a system of types, it possesses a double application.
First: it represents the whole history of the world from Noah's times to the establishment of the final Kingdom, the United States of America.
Second: it represents the full history of Christianity from the first advent to the second, inclusive.
The first period is that of the fathers, embracing Isaac as a type of Christ; the second is that of the patriarchs, in which Judah was a type of Christ; the third is that of the descent into Egypt, and union of the Israelite family with the throne, in which Joseph was a type of Christ; the fourth is the bondage of Israel, in which the infant Moses was a type of the infant Jesus; the fifth is the exodus and organization of a church and state in the wilderness, in which the lawgiver Moses was a type of the lawgiver Christ; the sixth is the conquest and settlement of Canaan, in which Joshua was a type of Christ; and the seventh is the period of royalty, in which David was a type of Christ.
1). To this picture, the seven periods of the world's history sublimely correspond, or will correspond when the cycle of its woes and triumphs is complete.
The three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, coincide with Shem, Ham, and Japhet; the twelve patriarchs correspond with the twelve sons of Shem and Japhet, who were the heirs of the world; the descent into Egypt, and the regal association of the Israelites, conform to the first great apostasy in the present earth, and the union of church and state in Babel under Nimrod, or the descent into spiritual Egypt and Sodom; the Israelite bondage coincides with the universal bondage of the world under paganism, and its evils of political and usury bondage.
The exodus and giving of the law, and organization of the Levitical church under Moses, coincide with Jesus Christ, the call of the lost tribes of Israel to the liberty of the gospel, the gospel laws, and the organization of the church of True Israel, or Christianity. The conquest and republic in Canaan typified the conquest of absolutism, and the millennial republic in Europe and America, and its ascendency over the world.
The completion of the conquest under the three kings, together with the royalty itself, coincide with the predicted conquest of the entire world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God in the regenerated heavens and earth. This is not to say that there will not be unbelievers in the future world with Christ as King, because the scriptures clearly relate that there will be. "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it [New Jerusalem] shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:24‑27); "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Revelation 22:14‑15)
2). The three fathers typified the Holy Trinity, taught so plainly by the gospel; and the twelve patriarchs typified the twelve apostles.
The descent into Egypt and union with the Egyptian throne, coincide with the descent of spiritual Israel into spiritual Egypt, of the union of the church of Christ's Israel with the throne of the Roman empire. The Israelite bondage consequent upon the descent into Egypt coincides with the civil and spiritual bondage suffered by spiritual Israel, after the union of church and state.
The exodus from typical Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, the overthrow of Pharaoh's host, the general thanksgiving, the organization of a republican confederacy of thirteen tribes, composed of three millions of people; the adoption of a written constitution by the tribes; the separation of the church and state departments, their freedom from control of one by the other; their laws of servitude and naturalization, and their full organization and deliverance under a noble leader, in a wilderness, have all a complete correspondence in the United States of America.
The conquest of Canaan, the overthrow of its monarchies in two great battles under Joshua, and the firm establishment of republicanism on both sides of Jordan, represent the conquest of Absolutism in Europe in two great battles, and the establishment of the millennial republic on both sides of the Atlantic, in the land promised to Abraham. The choice of a royalty by the Israelites, and the full conquest of the land of promise, "from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates," coincide with that period predicted by Daniel, in which the saints shall take the kingdom, and give the kingdom and dominion to one like unto the Son of Man, who shall come to "the people of the saints" in the clouds of heaven. These expositions will doubtless be new to every one, for few have attempted to explain the Israelite types as a system, and but few of the parts of the system have ever been interpreted and applied.
The field before us, like others we have ventured to explore, is a trail with few footsteps, and our views should therefore be neither received nor rejected without reason; and study, they may be new, yet antiquity of opinions does not prove their truth, nor is novelty always proof of error. Our expositions here harmonize with our expositions of the prophets and doctrines of the Bible, which would be impossible unless they were correct in all points, for error can not be harmoniously systematized. We are now honor bound to show some fair reasons for these views, and we hope shall be as satisfactory to reasonable minds as the nature of the case will admit.
In order to prove our points, we must possess some rule for testing a type, or of distinguishing it from an accidental resemblance. A type is an example, pattern, or general similitude to a person, event, or thing which is to come. The term type is sometimes synonymous with that of symbol. It then is an abstract or compendium, a sign or representation of something moral by the figures or properties of natural things. Among theological writers we find no complete rule laid down by which to identify types. some things have been written upon them, but nothing satisfactory to a thorough inquirer. Having, therefore, no rule given us by others by which to be guided, we offer the following as truthful and sufficient:
1). Those things, persons, or events in the ages prior to Christianity which were expressly arranged by immediate divine interference, either by remarkable providences or by miracle, may be regarded as types or symbols.
2). It is, and has been universally conceded in all the ages of Christianity, that the whole Israelite dispensation, together with the preceding dispensations to Noah and Adam, were typical dispensations, rather than realizing ones.
3). Those events, persons, and things in the dispensations prior to Christianity, and which have had their exact counterparts in the Christian dispensation, must be regarded as types. No accidental resemblances can ever be considered as types, for our principles require that the events or persons or things in the Christian age to be regarded as antitypes, must have resemblance not only in character but in the order of sequence. The typical dispensation being a system stretching over ages, its several types follow� each other in regular order, and in the realizing age, the counter-parts of the several� types must follow each other in the same regular order.
4). Whatever the scriptures affirm to be a type, must be esteemed such.
The three fathers were expressly arranged as a trinity by the miraculous power of Almighty God. Abraham was divinely called to enter Canaan; Isaac was born by miraculous interposition; and Jacob/Israel was born in answer to the prayer of Isaac. (Genesis 25:21) Isaac, as the second person of this trinity of fathers, was offered as the only begotten son of his father on Mt. Moriah, and thus clearly typified the offering of the only begotten Son of God by his father. As Abraham received Isaac as from the dead, and thus occurred a type of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead in general, so God received Jesus from the dead, and He became the first fruits of them that slept.
The limiting of the fathers to the number three, shows that it was an intentional limitation, and being in a typical dispensation, plainly confirms the number as typical. Of course we are to look in the plan of redemption for the counterpart trinity of heads of a race. This counterpart or antitype is found only in the trinity of the three heads of the human race and in the divine trinity. The coincidence being perfect in each case, the type is realized in each.
The humiliation of Ham, of Isaac, and of Christ is a triennial coincidence and wonderfully correct. The twelve patriarchs being a number clearly ordered by God, was unquestionably typical, and as every one subscribes to this truth, we need not argue the question. We therefore look into the plan of redemption to find its antitype, which must coincide in the number of persons and in exact order of sequence after the three heads of a race.
The sons of Shem, Ham and Japhet were the natural inheritors of the promises to the three fathers, but as the sons of Ham were given to Japhet and Shem, as servants, the heirship of the world fell to the twelve sons of Shem and Japhet [Which explains the remarkable success the Jew have had in their total control of the Communist Nations of the world]. The heirs of the three typical fathers in the above twelve heirs of the world find a striking coincidence.
The twelve apostles chosen as the especial heirs of the kingdom of the Divine Trinity also plainly coincide with the twelve patriarchs. Christ said to the twelve apostles, that when his kingdom was fully established they should eat and drink at His table in His kingdom, and sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The term judging here used, has the sense of ruling or administering government; and the term Israel, means all the seed of Abraham "redeemed" by Christ, or all of the redeemed of the world.
The descent into Egypt of the seventy souls of the patriarchs and families, finds its coincidence in order and character of events, in the submission of the true people of God to the sway of Nimrod, and of the union of church and state under Constantine and Justinian.
The union, of Jacob/Israel's family with Pharaoh's in the throne of Egypt was divinely arranged, and it was really the union of the Hebrew Church with the Egyptian State: in this union the church was inferior to the Pharaoh in the throne. The particulars of the coincidence between this union of church and state are not so clearly marked under the monarchy of Nimrod in history, but the fact of the subjection of God's people to him in the throne is as clear; and had we a full history of the matter, we might find the coincidence minutely perfect.
The Empire of Rome, John says, is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt," (Revelation 11:8) and the descent of the Christians into union with Rome is therefore a clear counterpart or antitype of the union of the Hebrew Church with Egyptian royalty. For the likeness is perfect as to events, and the chronological order of the events is relatively the same. The bondage of the Israelites in Egypt finds also a double coincidence in time and character in the world's great history and in the history of Christianity.
From the days of the subjection to Nimrod, the people of the world have been in general bondage to regal or totalitarian governments and to Satan's spiritual power; and while one race of men have been bondmen, all have been servants of sin and Satan, as subjects of political and spiritual despotisms. The task‑masters of the Israelite heirs of the promise, find their correspondence in kings, and princes of the earth.
In the union of church and state, true religion was soon to decrease, and all the true seed of Abraham were grievously persecuted or destroyed. The destruction of the Israelite infants was comparative kindness to the extensive butchery brought upon them by the Jews of recent times.
The deliverance from bondage, the constitutional law, and the journey or probation under the law in the wilderness, find a double and sublime counterpart:
1). In the appearance of Christ as a second Moses, the new constitutional law He promulgated, and the long wilderness‑like probation of His people in past ages.
2). In the passage of the sea by Christ's people, to the land of enlargement promised by God to Abraham, the establishment of the Christian constitution of the United States, and the testing of the ability of the people to uphold it and be happy under it.
One should not fail to note that the coincidence of the history of Israel with the world's general history, is seen principally in the larger features of the Israelite system, and that in the narrower diameter of the Christian era the coincidence between Israelite and Christian history is seen in an ever greater number of points.
That Moses and Christ coincide, the scriptures affirm; and that the plan of the redemption of Israel taught by Christ, began an exodus from spiritual and political bondage, which will end in the release of the world, as Israel was released from Egypt, every one admits. The probation in the wilderness was needed to accustom the people to new laws based upon republican principles, and the republican principles of Christianity needed to be tried by Israel a long season, in order to be appreciated, and ultimately adhered to with tenacity. Hence we read:
"...the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the dragon for a time times and half a time."
The ceremonial law, given in connection with the moral and political law or constitution, is affirmed by scripture to have been typically illustrative of the Christian system. The book of Hebrews gives the philosophy of the ceremonial law, and teaches that the whole Israelite economy was "a shadow of good things go come," "a figure for the time then present." As the bondage was followed by the scheme of Israel's redemption, so the universal bondage of the world was followed by the scheme of the world's ultimate redemption.
When Israel sighed by reason of oppression, and was willing to change its condition, and call to mind the promises, then a deliverer came; and when our Israel people of the United States sigh for relief, and is willing to hear of a change, then the world will sigh for relief, and will be willing to hear of a change, then a calm will fill the earth, and angels will herald the "desire of all nations," and the star of the east will once again hang over Bethlehem.
Secondly; the exodus from Egyptian bondage, the organization of a republican confederacy, and the probation under it till the conquest of Canaan, were typical of the exodus of the Christians from Europe, spiritual Egypt, to America, their organization of the republican confederacy of the United States, and their probation under a Republic up to the time of the conquest of absolutism.
The coincidences between these two great periods are more numerous than between any other typical and anti‑typical period whatever, excepting that of the same typical period and the epoch of Christianity. We may premise here, that it should be specially recollected that like things always typify their like: thus, a person used as a type typifies a person; an event typifies an event; a thing typifies a thing:
A country typifies a country; a period typifies a period; a church typifies a church; a state typifies a state; a bondage typifies a bondage; a deliverance typifies a deliverance; a probation typifies a probation; a war typifies a war; a priest typifies a priest, and a king typifies a king. One should now notice, more at large, the points of correspondence between the Israelite period of deliverance and the Christian period.
1). The children of "the free woman," or Israelites were freed by the exodus from the servitude of Egypt; and so the children of the free woman or Christians were, by the great exodus to America, freed from the bondage of "spiritual Egypt and Sodom," Europe. Let it ever be fixed in the mind, that almost all Christians are the seed of Abraham; they are the White Anglo‑ Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic peoples of the Christian� Nations of the world, or the free woman, and full heirs of the promises.
2). The Israelites were pursued by the oppressor, and he was vanquished; and so the Christians were pursued by the oppressor, and he was vanquished.
3). The Israelites crossed a sea to get away from bondage, and so did the Christians in coming to America.
4). The Israelites sought the land promised to their paternal head, and so the Christians, in their exodus to America, come to the land promised to Abraham, their paternal head.
5). At the destruction of the Egyptian tyrant's forces, Israel decreed a general thanksgiving to God, and so when the modern Pharaoh was defeated, a general thanksgiving was decreed by the American Congress. Songs and shouts; and all the demonstrations of exultation, joined with Miriam to celebrate God's name, and so songs and shouts, bonfires, illuminations, ringing of bells, tears of rapture, devout worship, and lofty thanksgiving celebrated the same God's praise through all our land. The Israelite exodus was a short period, but the American one extends from 1607 to 1996 and perhaps beyond.
6). According to Dr. Adam Clarke, and others, the number of the Israelites that escaped from bondage was estimated to be about three million; and the number of people in the revolutionary colonies, in 1776, was about three million.
7). The sea was frozen when the Israelites reached the safe side, and the Pilgrim Fathers found a frozen sea, and a snow covered shore, when they landed in America. This may or may not have been an accidental, and not a providential correspondence.
8). The Israelites were organized as a confederacy of thirteen tribes, and so there were thirteen colonies providentially organized into a Christian confederacy. Israel's tribes were called twelve, but out of Joseph there sprung two tribes who received an inheritance, thus making thirteen. It is also remarkable, that William Penn was proprietor of two colonies, Pennsylvania and Delaware. As Joseph was imprisoned, and yet had a double and birthright portion on account of his virtue, so William Penn suffered imprisonment for his virtue, and yet had a double portion.
9). The Israelite exodus was into a wilderness which was to be inherited as a part of the promised land; and so the exodus of the Christians was to a wilderness, which was a noble portion of Abraham's promised inheritance.
10). The Israelite confederacy was organized into a "more perfect union" after the exodus, by adopting a written constitution: and so the confederate colonies, after the war of independence, "in order to for a more perfect union," (Hebrews 9:11) adopted a written representative Republican federation constitution. The Israelite constitution was submitted to the tribes for acceptance and ratification (Exodus 19:8); and so was the American constitution. It is not a little remarkable, that the Israel and American constitutions are the only two written ones ever known to have been adopted at the birth of any nation, prior to 1776!
11). The Israelite nationality grew of the Hebrew church, or the seed of Abraham; and so the American nationality grew out of the Christian church, and the seed of Abraham. All of the Americans were not Christians at the framing of the constitution, and so were not all of the Israelites pious; as their culpable unbelief shows. Yet the unbelieving Israelites enjoyed the same political benefits as did the faithful, and so it was with the Americans. About one hundred and forty‑four thousand Christians were in America at the time of the Revolution, yet the prevalence of Christian maxims and principles was universal, and the virtuous political principles avowed by the Christians were adopted by all classes.
12). Church and state were disunited by the Israelite constitution and placed in the relation of associates. The church was debarred, as a church, from exercising direct control in civil affairs, and so it was in the American constitution.
Many have either ignorantly or willfully mistaken the relations which the Israelite church and state held to each other. Some mistakes may have occurred on account of the fact, that, as some laws were alike political and spiritual, it was supposed consequently that all laws were so. The Sabbath, the Sabbatic and jubilee years, and the rite of circumcision, were regulations of both a spiritual and secular nature. But with us the Sabbath illustrates the case of these laws, for we regard it as both a sacred and a secular institution: as a secular institution, its observance is compelled as a day of repose to wearied nature, and to prevent oppressors from grinding the poor to death by ceaseless toil; and also to give vigor to the general operations of society by the universal refreshment it bestows.
The civil arm has, with us, no right to compel its observance as a spiritual institution, and should have none. Precisely so was it in the Israelite law. The civil power was not the head of the Israelite church, as the monarchs of Rome, Russia, and England have been of the Roman, Greek and English churches. Neither the Judges nor kings of Israel could appoint a high priest of the church; nor could the priesthood compel the paying of tithes, or the offering of sacrifices, nor require the secular arm to do it. In spiritual matters the Israelite was responsible only to God and to the ecclesias-tical law of God, and was in no way responsible to civil authority for his spiritual conduct.
The United States Constitution puts religion in just exactly the same relation to civil authority that God ordered, in the days of Moses. However, evil men in government, are today trying to control the churches through man made laws and statutes. The disunion of church and states is the great prophetic epoch of liberty and progress according to both Daniel and John. It is the beginning of the end of despotism, and when it fully prevails the "time of the end" will close, and despotism will forever cease on earth. The two separate departments of religion and politics in the Israel confederacy exactly coincide with these two departments in our country. At least it did in the beginning.
13). The political offices of the Hebrews were elective, and not hereditary, and so it is in our government.
14). Their government was not originally an aristocratic republic; the people decided in general assembly all questions of war, treaties, and peace, and Moses always appealed to the whole, and not to the few aristocrats, to accept or reject his propositions.
Josephus says it was an aristocratic republic, but it is plain that he must speak of the executive department of the government and not of the legislative. We might in a similar manner call our government an aristocratic republic. The term aristocratic meant, anciently, the best; it now signifies, in an odious sense, the worst!
15). The people of Israel chose God as their only king, and renounced allegiance to all other monarchs by acclamation, and so did the people of the United States.
16). The Israelite constitution recognized the institution of bondage, and so does/did the American constitution.
17). The Israelite constitution forbade foreigners ever becoming supreme magistrates, and so does the American.
18). The Israelite constitution provided for the naturalization of foreigners, and so does the American, but not so strictly.
These coincidences between the exodus of Israel and that of the Christians, are of the most extraordinary nature if we take them singly, but when taken together they are nothing less than miraculous.
The sixth period of Israelite history, which includes the conquest of Canaan and establish�ment of the republic, coincides with the sixth period of the world, and the sixth of Christianity. The great points in this period particularly noticeable are these: first, the conquest of Canaan was completed by two great battles; secondly, the conquest of Canaan under Joshua and the Judges did not embrace all of the promised land.
The promise extended from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, and was not realized until the days of Solomon. The prophets assure us, the monarchies of the Japhetic race shall be broken in two great battles at the conquest by Liberty, and hence the war for possession of Canaan by republican Israel, coincides with the predicted war of the Christian republicans for possession of the territories of Japhet. And the two great battles and victories of Joshua coincide with the two predicted battles in the war for liberty. These two battles are pointed out by John in Ezekiel 38 and 39 and in the 14th chapter of Revelation, and in other places. The first is indicated by; "I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company" and "I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee."
Then "One like unto the Son of Man" on a white cloud who "thrust in his sickle on the earth and the earth was reaped;" and the second by the reaping of the vine of the earth, and its being cast into the wine‑press without the city, and the blood coming out of it "even unto the horse bridles, by the space of sixteen hundred furlongs."
And again John says, that three agencies went forth to gather all the kings of the earth to the battle of the great day of God Almighty, and that they assembled at a place called Armageddon. He then, after a short episode, describes the United States and the attack of the confederate kings upon it, and states that the beast or Russian power was taken, and that Europe or the False Prophet was taken at the same time.
The reaping of the earth signifies the destruction of European monarchy, and the reaping of the vine indicated the dreadful flow of blood at the fall of all the European thrones. As all thrones in Canaan fell before carnal Israel to make room for the republic, so all thrones must fall before Christian Israel to make room for the great republic.
Let sceptics smile at our simplicity in writing the doom of European thrones: yet let them be serious as they hear Daniel the prophet saying, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down," and "became lie the chaff of the summer threshing‑floor, and the wind carried them away, and there was no place found for them." (Daniel 2:35; 7:9)
The world was promised to Abraham as truly as was Canaan, and Canaan was but typical of the world. A country typifies a country, and a people typifies a people; and so the conquest of a large part of Canaan was, therefore, typical of the conquest of a large portion of the earth; and as a republic typified a republic, the commonwealth established in a great part of Canaan, typifies a common-wealth erected over a great part of the earth.
The Millennium so often and lovingly spoken of in the pulpits of America is clearly a state of the world in which a portion of it only is embraced under the blessings of civil and religious republicanism, or Christianity. The seventh period of Israelite history coincides with the seventh of the world and of Christianity.
This period is that in which the republic was changed to a monarchy by the universal voice of the people. During the reign of a trinity of monarchs, the promised land was taken from the foe, a capital of the kingdom was selected, and a temple of transcendent glory was raised, and the Israelites attained the zenith of splendor. As like typifies its like, this royalty typified a royalty, and the full conquest, under it, of all the typically promised land, typified the full conquest of the world under the final royalty of Christ.
Now, prophecy declares that the people shall at last give up the government of the world to the Son of Man, who shall come in the clouds of heaven, and that He shall destroy all the wicked, shall renew the world, and reign for ever among men. It further says that the capital of the redeemed world shall descend out of heaven to the earth; and it will hold the same relation to all the world that old Jerusalem did to Canaan. We have now briefly pointed out the great coincidences between the seven periods of the world from Noah to the final redemption, and the seven periods of Christianity.
We have by no means descended to notice the minute resemblances between Christianity and Hebrewism as religious type and anti‑type, which fully accord with our expositions; we have refrained from touching them for want of space, and because they have been largely set forth by others.
We will, later go further, pointing out the coincidence of the Israelite history with Christianity. One more point and we shall close this introduction. It may be inquired why we have a right to give seven periods to Israelite history rather than any other number. To this query we reply, first, that the periods we have given are plainly great ones, and are marked out as such by nature of providence.
Secondly, each of these periods is also marked by a clear type of Messiah. Thus in the first period, that of the fathers, Isaac was clearly a type of Christ. In the second, or that of the patriarchs, Judah was a type of Christ. The septer was not to depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver, until Shiloah came, and he was to be the "Lion of the tribe of Judah."
In the third period, Joseph is called "the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel," (Genesis 49:24) and is allowed by all to prefigure Christ most graphically. In the fourth period, the infant Moses prefigures the infant Jesus. As Pharaoh decreed the destruction of the Israelite infants, so did Herod, the Jew; and as Moses was providentially preserved, so was Christ; and as Moses came unto his own and they received him not, so did Christ. In the fifth period, Moses, as a prophet, declares that he was a type of our Lord; and in the sixth period, Joshua prefigured Jesus according to Paul, and in the seventh period, David was certainly the type of his Son Jesus.
Biblical Basis For The Frame Work Of The United States
The Kingdom of God on Earth
The very foundations of the United States of America, was taken directly from the Laws of God as stated in the Holy Scriptures. The claims of the Anti-Christs notwithstanding. Even though liberation theology appears bent on under-mining the Christian faith from within, in an effort to destroy its uniqueness and the freedom it has enjoyed for generations.
The attempt of modern Christianity to evangelize the world has erased the color line in the Church, greatly accelerated interracial marriage, and brought the Church of Jesus Christ to a day of real peril. Universalism in salvation history is not found in the Bible.
It is the vain imagination of man running wild before God and in disobedience to His Word. Is it not about time that we were content to leave the non‑Israelites of the world to follow their gods and their religions and rest content in the knowledge that God has ordained the Bible and the salvation history contained therein for His people Israel?
Why do we want to rewrite the Bible in the image of fallen man? Why do we seek to make the Bible something that God did not intend? Let the non‑Israelites of the world follow their gods, build their temples, and read their religious books. Bring back the Israelite missionaries that are running to the far corners of the earth with a program God did not ordain. Is it not about time that we believed God and Scripture and be content to hear the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 15:14: "...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
As for Israel, let them follow Jesus Christ, be faithful to His Commandments, and evangelize their own kind. What God hath ordained let no man seek to change. Whenever the Anglo-Saxon people allow the Book to be closed, through neglect or a refusal to heed its warnings or listen to its message, the ensuing spiritual decadence brings retribution in sorrow, trouble and national calamities. The forces of evil were unable to close the open Book at the time of the Spanish Armada, but now they have succeeded in bringing about the closing of the Book in the evil doctrine of modernism. The teachings of this sugarcoated Judeo-Christian atheism have literally closed the Book to the understanding of multitudes of our people.
Our people, today, face a crisis of such magnitude as has never before been experienced by our nation or people. It was a day of evil for our land when modernism entered our seminaries and graduated into the pulpits of our churches - and it was brought in through traitors to Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and by their enemies; who falsely claimed to be Christian.
With the advent of this Judeo-Christian modernism the Book began to close and people turned away from its truths until today millions never look into its pages nor read its message. A state of spiritual decadence is afflicting our land with unbelief, from the men who stand in our pulpits to those who sit in the pews and the multitudes that crowd the streets of our cities. Let us once again open the Book before it is too late, that there may be a revival of interest, bringing such a spiritual awakening that it will enable God to save us.
Let those who are in authority seek for Divine guidance as they pilot the Ship of State through troubled waters. They must yet open the Book and follow the instructions of God contained in this Book of books; there is no other solution for the crisis ahead, nor can we expect victory over our enemies until there is compliance with these requirements. Of Israel the Lord said:
"Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off." (Exodus 23:20-23)
Today that Mighty Angel has "in his hand a little book opened." Let us obey His voice and follow the instruction of the opened Book that our enemies may become God's enemies and our adversaries His adversaries. If we continue to provoke Him by refusing to believe, to read, to study and to be guided by the instruction of the open Book, there will be no one but ourselves to blame for the troubles and national calamities that will come upon us. May the figurehead, the man with the open Book, so markedly portraying the reason for America's greatness, be a symbol of a soon awakening throughout our land to the need of opening our Bibles that God's Will may be done and our country and people saved from all their enemies. The original charters, compacts, contracts, and constitutions, all had their origin in the Bible. All the laws, rules, and regulations concerning civil, religious, and hygiene were taken from the Bible and patterned after the Christian Faith. All of the Common Law of the United States of America came directly out of the Old Testament books of the Holy Bible, namely, the original source of our Common Law was the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
We will present a brief rendition of the contents contained herein so you will be able to see and understand what is being presented much better.
1). Decentralization of Government: Deuteronomy 1; Exodus 18, show that the Ancient Hebrew Republic was decentralized.
1 Samuel 8 shows God was against the Children of Israel in attempting to centralize power by asking for a king. However, Yahweh had told Moses several hundred years prior to that time, that the Children of Israel would, in deed, demand a king; that they would refuse to have Him rule over them. (Deuteronomy 17:14-15) That the result of their rejecting Yahweh would result in tyranny. 1 Chronicles 11:3; Deuteronomy 1:13-17 demonstrate our Israelite people were to have only local self-government - government by consent of the people. Deuteronomy 17:6-7 shows the people were to enforce the law, not the government. In order to keep the government as close to the people as possible, strong local and regional governments should be established with a limited national or central government. Such a division of power is a safeguard against the tyranny of the centralization of power which the pagans prefer.
History has shown that centralization of governmental power destroys the liberty and rights of man. The way to have good and safe government is to divide the power among the people and the localities, instead of entrusting it to one central body. Civil government in a country should be subdivided into many levels; local, regional, national. The power of each level should be clearly defined and sovereign in those defined areas. No level of government should be able to usurp the jurisdiction of another. A great majority of the power should rest on the local level.
The power of the national government, on the other hand, should be limited to matters like defence, foreign policy, regulation of inter-regional and foreign commerce, citizenship laws, coining money, patents and copyrights. Those chosen to represent the people must be forced to face the same people frequently in order to be re-elected. This establishes accountability. Half of the national legislature of the Ancient Hebrew Republic was composed of an elected house of officers called 'judges' which were selected on the basis of population, not regional or tribal representation. (Deuteronomy 1:13-17; Exodus 18:12-26)
Another house of their legislature was composed of two appointed 'elders' and two scribes/lawyers representing each geographic region (tribe) plus the 24 priests totalling 70 men. This unelected body was known as the Sanhedrin. The elected representatives of the people were chosen on the basis of population: 10s, 50s, 100s and 1000s. Moses would swear them in or 'appoint' them only after they were selected by the people. (Deuteronomy 1:13)
A multi-party system and the right of any citizen to form a party are essential. In addition, the vote must be secret so that no pressure or fear of reprisal can influence the outcome and the vote must be available to all citizens equally, regardless of race, color, social status, religion or gender.
2). Constitutionalism: Deuteronomy 5, 6, 8; Romans 13:1-2 gives us the Rule of Law. Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy, Exodus 20; list the Ten Commandments, God's Laws and Statutes. 2 Corinthians 3:17; John 19:11 show the Creator endowed our rights, and that they were not government-granted rights or privileges.
The concept of constitutionalism began when Moses presented the Book of the Covenant to the people at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 19:5-8; 20:2-17) This initiated the concept of a national covenant or constitution which must be agreed upon by the people before the government has legitimacy.
In a decentralized government a constitution, and a so-called ruling party or parties, is supreme. A government of liberty will be a government of laws, not of rulers or of the majority. In a pure democracy, a simple majority (just over 50%) of the people rule. The rights of the minority could, and most likely, would be in jeopardy under such a government. Therefore, the best form of democracy will be a constitutional democracy. Here, the law is supreme, and both the people and the rulers are subject to the law. This is essential for the protecting of the individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. Since the law is supreme and not the rulers, the people will be protected from the ruler's tyranny.
Many contrast a constitutional republic with a parliamentary form of government in which parliament, rather than a fixed written constitution, is the supreme source of law. However, a Parliament tends to favor whatever groups gain the majority coalition and potentially may oppress the rights of minorities and individuals as it pleases.
3). Separation of Powers: The Ancient Hebrew Republic had separation of power. Isaiah 33:22 reveals the three functions carried out in all governments; legislative, executive, judicial. Since man is fallen and sinful, he must be limited in power, as a prohibitive� measure to protect our God-� given rights from the tyranny of unjust rulers, which was why there were to be a separation of powers. Every government exercises power through three different branches - the legislative, which makes the laws, the executive which enforces and carries out the laws and the judicial which interprets the laws. The Bible recognizes these three functions in Isaiah 33:22 when it says that the Lord is our King, our Lawgiver and also our Judge. Because God is perfect and all-wise, He can exercise all these functions simultaneously and righteously. Sinful, finite man cannot. Thus one of the ways of limiting government power is to decentralize by ensuring that different people run these different branches of government. Tyranny will result when these three branches are in the same hands. An example of checks and balances is the executive having the right to veto laws passed by the legislative, and the legislative being able to override the veto with a larger percentage vote by their members.
Judicial Tyranny:
Empowered by The People
The United States Supreme Court has run amok. It has dis-emboweled most of the ten Amendments of our Constitution's Bill of Rights; pervert the 11th Amendment (which affects judicial powers); threatened the 12th (presidential election procedures) with computer rigging; allowed "involuntary servitude" (in the form of excessive taxation) once prohibited by the 13th Amendment; paid only lip service to the 14th (regarding citizenship and due process); and abused the 16th (never properly or legally ratified).
In recent years, they've started dismantling our 1st Amendments rights to freedom of speech, press, and petition for redress of grievances. And then on December 1, 1991, they essentially terminated our constitutional right to trial by jury. The destruction of our constitutional rights is based on Judiciary Law 28 USC 2072 which grants the Supreme Court the power to make procedural rules provided that "such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right." Sounds reasonable enough, but the statute includes the following "repealer:" "All views in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect."
In other words, once these rules are passed, even by default, any previous rules or laws to the contrary are automatically repealed. This repealer renders the statute unconstitutional "on its face" and subject to challenge since the statute permits the supreme court to non‑judicially repeal laws previously passed by the legislature. Nevertheless, the statute and the court's unconstitutional power continue unpublicized and unchallenged. The judiciary's rule making assault on the Constitution started after the Great Depression, when Congress began to shift some of its legislative function to the Supreme Court. Instead of maintaining its constitutional responsibility to legislate the procedural rules of federal courts. Congress ceded that power to the Supreme Court.
At first, the Supreme Court made the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and also the Federal Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure, and Appellate Procedure). Later several of the Supreme Court Justices requested that the Supreme court be relieved of the rule making power in order to avoid the "embarrass�ment of having to sit in judgment on the constitutionality of rules which we have approved and which as applied in given situation might have to be declared invalid." So to insulate the Supreme Court from political repercussions, the rule making the power was shifted to another agency of the judiciary called the "Judicial Conference." (The Judicial Conference includes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of each of the twelve U.S. Circuit Courts, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and one district court judge from each of the Circuits. The diversity of judges sounds somewhat like a legislature that serves only lawyers, doesn't it?).
Early each year, the Judicial Conference proposes whatever new procedural rules they want. In the Spring, the Supreme Court rubber stamps the Judicial Conference's proposed rules, and sends them to Congress for approval. In Congress, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are responsible for examining the proposed rules and rejecting those that are constitutionally repugnant. (This is a curious reversal of constitutional roles; the judiciary makes the rules, a legislative function, while the congressional committees determine the rules' constitutionality, the legitimate role of the judiciary).
Although Congress can theoretically vote against the proposed rules, they almost never do. Worse, Congress is not even obligated to approve the proposed rules for the rules to pass. Each year, if Congress simply does nothing, the rules pass by "default" and become Law. And that's what typically happens: The Judiciary writes the rules it wants. Congress does nothing, and the rules become Law by default. Worse, any existing law or rule which contradicts the new rules, is automatically repealed without a direct Legislative or Judicial act. Congress has essentially surrendered its obligation to make laws to the Judiciary in an obvious violation of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
As proof consider a July, 1991 article in Shepard's Litigation Reporter entitled "Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The law industry/lobby is so complacent about this rule‑making process the article noted that these proposed rule amendments "are to take effect on December 1, 1991," but neglected to include the proviso "if Congress doesn't object." Why? Because everyone knows that so long as the people are silent on the issue, Congress won't object in the least, even though this year's rules seek to deny the last vestige of people power: the jury trial. (These rules are currently buried in the House Sub‑Committee on Judicial Administration. When I recently called that committee to protest the proposed new rules, I was told I was the only citizen in the entire United States to have even commented on the rules, let alone protested)
We Were Warned
But none of this is news. We were warned. From 1937 to 1963, the liberal Supreme Court Justices Brandeis, Black, Frankfurter, and Douglas frequently opposed the judiciary's submission of proposed rule amendments to Congress. Excerpts from their objections:
"While some of the Rules of Civil Procedure are simply housekeeping details, many determine matters so substantially affecting the rights of litigants in law suits that in practical effect they are the equivalent of new legislation which...the Constitution requires to be initiated in and enacted by the Congress and approved by the President. The Constitution... provides that all laws shall be enacted by the House, the Senate, and the President, not by the mere failure of Congress to reject proposals of an outside agency. Our chief objection to the rules relate essentially to fact that many of their provisions do 'abridge, enlarge, or modify' substantive rights and do not 'preserve the right to trial by jury' but actually encroach upon it." (Opposition of Justices Black and Douglas to 'January 21, 1963 order of Supreme Court of the United States adopting & amending Rules (368 U.S. 1012));
"...Judges have whittled away or denied the right of trial by jury, through the devices of direct verdicts and judgments notwithstanding verdicts. Although the amendment here is not itself a momentous one, it gives formal sanction to the process by which the courts have been wresting from juries the power to render verdicts. Since we do not approve of this sapping of the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial, we cannot join even this technical coup de grace." (Galloway v. United States, 401‑407, 63 S.Ct. 1077.87 L.Ed. 1458; dissent);
"Such devices are used to impair or wholly take away the power of a jury to render a general verdict. One of the ancient, fundamental reasons for having general jury verdicts was to preserve the right of trial by jury as an indispensable part of a free government...Rule 49 is but another means utilized by the courts to weaken the constitutional power of juries and to vest judges with more power to decide cases according to their own judgments. A scrutiny of the special verdict and written interrogatory cases in appellate courts will show the confusion that necessarily results from the employment of these devices and the ease with which judges can use them to take away the right to trial by jury."
Opposition of Justices Black and Douglas to 'January 21, 1963 order of Supreme Court of the United States adopting & amending Rules (368 U.S. 1012)
Although the liberal Supreme Court Justices sometimes object to proposed rules as being unconstitutional, their warnings were unheard by the public, ignored by the Congress, and outvoted by the balance of the Supreme Court. As a consequence, the Supreme Court and Judicial Conference have caused a constant erosion of our rights by making unconstitutional procedural Laws in small, sneaky steps. But, the Judicial Conference's assault on our constitutional rights is so bold as to be frightening. This year's proposed Rule amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are presently before Congress. On December 1, 1991, these rules were to become Law over the Constitution and statutes, if We, The People, did not intercede. If passed, four of these rules, in particular, will effectively repeal our right to trial by jury. Although these four rules will not prohibit trials by jury, they will end our absolute, constitutional right to trial by jury in federal courts. We will no longer receive a trial by jury as an automatic, undeniable, constitutional right, but only as a privilege to be selectively granted or refused according to the whims of federal judges.
For example, proposed Rule 16(c)(15) will give federal judges the unconstitutional sua sponte power (the ability to act on their own initiative, without even responding to a litigant's motion) to enter summary judgments "to avoid unnecessary costs of trial" at a pretrial conference. If the judge thinks you don't have a case, he can simply decide in favor of your adversary, in the relative secrecy of a pretrial conference. He can deny your right to trial by jury based on nothing more than his personal evaluation of your case's prospects.
Of course, the judge can also deny your right to trial by jury because of your race, your gender, your political affiliation, whether you're pro se, whether your adversary's lawyer is a personal friend of the judge, whether the other side's bribed the judge, or whether your case represents a constitutional issue the courts would rather not consider in public. Federal judges will be able to do all that and more, provided they don't admit it publicly, and justify their actions as per Rule 16(c)(15) as avoiding "unnecessary costs of trial."
Both the current and proposed rule 41(b) permit the involuntary dismissal of cases for failure to comply with other procedural rules or any court order. This Rule violates the right to equal protection under the law because it applies only to plaintiffs, not defendants. Since only plaintiffs are vulnerable, the courts can effectively restrict some kinds of cases or litigants from even initiating a lawsuit (petitioning for redress of grievance), let alone being heard in court.
For example, if you were trying to sue a judge or lawyer, a federal judge could theoretically dismiss your case based ostensibly on the technicality of failing to observe one of the myriad of other procedural rules. This reliance on technicalities may constitute a de facto denial of our right to due process of law. The potential for judicial abuse is obvious. Proposed Rule 50 will give federal judges total tyrannical power to abort a case before giving it to the jury. The "Motion for judgment as a matter of law" will authorize judges to enter judgments at any time during the trial whenever a party has been fully heard with respect to only a single issue (not the whole case) and the judge decides it's apparent that the party is unable to carry the burden of proof essential to his case. Again, there is an enormous potential for abuse.
Proposed Rule 52 (judgment on partial findings) will give judges the same power as in Rule 50, except in non‑jury trials. You can even prepare for trial, start your evidence, and bingo, if the judge becomes bored, your case can be dismissed!
��������������������� PUBLIC APATHY? OR PUBLIC POWER?
The liberal Justices Brandeis, Frankfurter, Black, and Douglas could not overcome the unconstitutional rule‑making by the Supreme Court and Judicial Conference. And though Congress is obligated to overturn unconstitutional court decisions or decisions which misinterpret the Constitution, they normally ignore their duty, unless they are lobbied. Almost everyone has a lobby; NRA, NAACP, IPAC, Pro‑Choice, Animal Rights, the Environment, etc.
Even judges have a lobby which they use to petition Congress for judicial immunities! With the rise of special interests, PACS, and unbridled political campaign contributions, the people's original lobby, the Congress, has abandoned us. Now, only We, The People, have no lobby, so our government ignores us. It should be painfully clear that if We, the People, do not object, no one else will. We have the power. That power is in the vote and in organizations supporting legal reform. But by failing to use those powers, especially in an organized way, we are surrendering our rights. If we are to stop the judiciary's usurpation of power and our loss of rights, we must stop blaming our legislators as being totally responsible and accept some of the blame ourselves.
Call your Congressman or Senator and demand that Congress overturn any judicial rule making which violate the Constitution. Ask them specifically what the status of
"Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 16 (c)(15), 41(b), 50, and 52 ‑ which will give federal judges the unconstitutional power to deny trial by jury, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws. These rules are currently buried in the House Sub‑Committee on Judicial Administration."
4). Trial by Jury: Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Exodus 18:15-16 shows were to receive a fair trial under the law. Exodus 18:15-16 demonstrates the Right of Habeas Corpus. Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:5; Numbers 35:30; Matthew 18:15-16; Hebrews 10:28; 1 Timothy 5:19; 2 Corinthians 13:1 states there must be two or three witnesses against a person.
Another check on sinful men abusing their governmental power is having a court system with judges independent of the executive or legislative branch, and by having trials by jury. The courts are the ones who are to keep an eye on the legislative and executive branches of government and determine their faithfulness to constitutional standards.
The Ancient Hebrew Republic emphasized an independent and impartial judiciary. (2 Chronicles 19:5-10; Exodus 23:1-3; Deuteronomy 17:6; Leviticus 20) It is also asserted in passages such as Deuteronomy 19:15-19 that,
a). One is innocent until proven guilty;
b). The right to due process of law;
c). One cannot be forced to testify against oneself;
d). Accusers must personally confront you so they may be cross-examined, and
e). The right to appeal to a higher court. (Deuteronomy 1:19) Wrongdoers must be punished by judges who, as well as knowing the law, must be honest, refuse bribes and not show favoritism.
However, in order to protect individual liberty and guarantee a fair trial, the judicial system needs a jury made up of unelected individuals who will not be swayed by political pressures and who are drawn at random from the same social level as the defendant. The jury system was foreshadowed in the Ancient Hebrew Republic (Deuteronomy 19:15-21) and in the teaching of Jesus concerning taking cases to the people. (Matthew 18:15-17)
5). Civilian Control of Police and Military Forces: In ancient Israel the people were armed and formed the military. Their leaders were selected or consented to by the people: Even the kings governed by consent (1 Chronicles 11:3. Luke 22:26; Romans 13:1-4; Peter 2:13-14) demonstrates that the people were to have freedom and peace through strength; that they were to bear arms for self-defence. That civil government bears the sword and the rulers were to govern by the people's consent.
Another crucial curb on the power of sinful men in government is a civilian-dominated and controlled police and militia. The Ancient Hebrew Republic clearly separated the leadership of the army from the Executive branch: Moses was the Executive and Joshua was the Commander of the military; David was the King and Joab was the Commander of the military. The members of the militia, or civilian army, supplied their own weapons which presupposed the right to bear arms. (1 Samuel 25:13; Numbers 31:3; 32:20) Any attempt to prohibit the right of an individual to own arms was unbiblical and is a pagan attempt to centralize power. (Judges 5:8; 1 Samuel)
The officers of the armies should not be appointed by the head-of-state, but by elected representatives from their own geographical area. The majority of a nation's army should simply be working citizens who have their own weapons and can be called together quickly. The police force should be locally and regionally controlled and completely separate from military power and from federal control. The head of the police forces should be elected and governed by local government. The rest of the police should be hired by the government as normal employment.
6). Free Market Economy: Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 115:16; Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 19:14; Ecclesastes 5:19 relate we were to have Private property rights; freedom of individual enterprise.
Ancient Israel ensured that none of the areas under the jurisdiction of the individual, the family and the church were controlled by the State. The only legislation the government could pass in these areas was to protect equal opportunity, liberty and the property of individuals. However separation of church and state did not mean religious individuals were prohibited from influencing politics. A free market economy (within the confines of the United States - not international) is especially important because its components are essential for any country that desires to secure individual liberty and economic productivity. Its components include private property rights, individual enterprise and a free market. Private property includes all things that belong to an individual through his own labors or which has been freely given to him.
This includes land, homes, personal possessions, inventions, wages, his religious beliefs, his opinions, his freedom of speech and his writings. The basic idea of individual enterprise is that when people are free to acquire and own property, produce what they want choose their occupation, live and work where they wish, acquire whatever goods and services they desire, and have access to free markets they will prosper, and, consequently, cause their nation to prosper. In a free market (within the confines of the various states in the United States) people offer quality goods or services that are produced by their special talents and that they feel will be a benefit to the community.
Each person is free to sell or not to sell at whatever price they want to offer, but they cannot force anyone to buy. The price of goods and services will be determined by 'supply and demand.' The government must not interfere in the free market by setting prices and wages, but must protect the free market by punishing theft and fraud. All men are equal in their right to life, liberty, their equal status before the law and their right to acquire property. However, they are not equal in their talents and abilities and therefore in their ability to generate wealth. Each person is created by God and is unique and distinct. He is responsible for his own choices and actions and must also bear the consequences of his decisions. A government which has a false idea of equality says men have an equal right to material possessions and tries to redistribute wealth accordingly. By so doing it stifles initiative and individuality and weakens the country economically.
������������������������������������������������ COMMERCE
One of the most detrimental acts; an act which is clearly evident to those who will only look, which is helping to destroy our beloved America, is international commerce! Yet, our people have been led to believe by traitorous leaders that commerce is good and wonderful. Instead of the tool of destruction Satan is using in his never ending efforts to destroy God's people, the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples of the word.
Yes the so‑called Christian Nations of the Western World, of whom the United States, the New Jerusalem spoken of in the scriptures; the home of the Kingdom of God when Christ comes to take over His rightful place as the ruler of the earth, are being destroyed by international commerce and because of the culpability of the media, our people cannot see what is happening.
Michaleis in his Commentary on Laws of Moses, Article 39, pointed out the extreme indifference of Moses toward foreign or maritime commerce. To some of the politicians of our day, this will seem little short of remarkable. Yet there is obvious some erroneous ideas lies at the bottom of their amazement. For when they observe the wealth acquired, in recent years, by Japan and Germany, through foreign trade; which is so striking, many are apt to think commerce alone is the true source of national prosperity, and that it is the greatest benefit which a legislator can confer upon his constitutes. The mere mention of the name "commerce" fascinates their imagination and seems to make them incapable of sound and sober reflection and comparison.
In the stupor and delirium of their dreams of vast wealth and power they are totally oblivious to the fact that commerce is proving to be the ruin of both public and private prosperity; the approaching destruction of our beloved country, as too many superfluous commodities are imported, and America is plunged into the mire of foreign indebtedness. The main cause of this over valuation of commerce, as compared to agriculture is; those of agriculture are reserved and modest; seldom coming to the public notice [unless something stops the food from getting to their grocery shelves], whereas those of commerce lie upon the surface and are more open to general observation. Japan appears to be the most commercial nation on earth today. Her trade with the United States is enormous; yet the entire annual movement of this commerce both ways would pale in insignificance to that of agriculture were in not for the action of those in government to destroy America's power.
Commercial pursuits are unstable and are drastically effected to changes, in the international markets; whereas agricultural are solid and much less effected by international whelms. The prizes in commerce are few; when one individual or company rises hundreds sink into oblivion and ruin. The physical and moral influences of commerce and agriculture is almost indescribable. Where agriculture is both mother and father of health, industry, temperance, cheerfulness, friendliness, and frugality; of simple manners, pure and strong morals; of patriotism and domestic virtues and above all that sturdy independence, without which a man is not a man; but becomes feminine and is the slave or servant [Is not America becoming a servant nation?] the plaything of the anti‑Christs and heathens. Agriculture produces and cherishes a spirit of equality and sympathy. Buying and selling are the chief business of cities, where the giving and receiving of wages an hourly or daily transaction. It produces a collision of interests and feelings, which of necessity checks the feeling of sympathy. International commerce creates immorality, indifference, apathy, crime, drug abuse; in other words everything that is evil and anti‑God, anti‑Christ, anti‑Christian and anti‑American. The goals of Satan.
Agriculture strengthens love of country, racial pride. The heart of the former and rancher is tied to the fields and pastures, where he bestows his love and labor, which responds in turn to his work by clothing itself in beauty and riches beyond measure. More especially when possessions have come down through a long line of honored ancestors, which strengthens even more the attachment he feels to his home and country. Agriculture produces the highest degree of conservation in its nature and every action. It is a great antagonist of that Satanic spirit of liberalism, radicalism and revolutionary innovations, which is the greatest enemy of Christian institutions which was observed long ago by Aristotle, who stated:
"Husbandry is the best stuff of a commonwealth, such a one being the most devoted to liberty, and the least subject to innovation or turbulence."
It is in the occupation of the rural life, that ones mind is the most tranquil, sober and unclouded by media hype. It is in such an atmosphere, one can most clearly discern the relations of things; to look beyond the spur of the moment, the events of a day. It is from the country, from the land free nations have drawn many of their greatest leaders and patriots.
An Israelite farmer was summoned from the quiet of farm life on the distant plains of Midian, to become the lawgiver and founder of a mighty republic. It was an American farmer who led the first American army to victory, and secured for his grateful and admiring countrymen [with God's help], the blessings of liberty, independent self‑government: A REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN NATION! Our American government and American people should follow Moses and give no encouragement to international or maritime commerce because:
1). International Commerce tends to counteract the first and highest principles of Christianity, morality and honesty.
2). International Commerce entices too many of our citizens and industry to leave America and settle in foreign lands. It weakens patriotism and causes them to eventually betray the trust and best interests of the United States. It causes them to become, in a sense, a citizen of the world with no love or affection for the country of their birth.
3). International Commerce introduces luxurious tastes and habits, such as drug addiction and perversion. The bad effects of commerce far outweighing the good.
4). International Commerce makes enemies between nations with common ancestors. Such as the wars between England and France; England and Spain; France and Spain; United States and Germany and etc.
�� 5). It drains off a nations wealth; just as it has the United States. Once the richest nation ever known in the history of the world.
Now, since its leaders have betrayed their trust and have led America down the International Maritime Commerce path to destruction. Except God and Christ intervenes.
6). International Commerce is condemned in the scriptures, Chapter 18 of the Book of Revelation is a ringing indictment against it. In verse four God's people are admonished to not participate; to come out of her.
However, we should point out, there is one form of commerce which is beneficial to America and its people: That is internal commerce. Which made America rich and powerful in the first place!
7). Election of Representatives: Deuteronomy 1:13-17; Exodus 18:21-27.
THE ESSENTIAL FOUNDATIONS OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
1). Self-government: 1 Timothy 3:5; Proverbs 16:31.
2). Union: The Bible is full of examples of covenants. 1 Corinthians 1:10; Psalms 133:1; Ephesians 4:1-3.
3). Individuality: Genesis 1. God's creation reveals the principle of individuality. (John 1:3) God created all things, He is reflected in His creation. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) Each member of the Church has unique callings and gifts.
4). Property: Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 43:7; Ephesians 2:10; Revelation 4:11. God created the earth and all things on it, including man. Therefore, we belong to Him. We are not our own. We were created for His glory and His purpose. We are to be good stewards of that which is first our own person, and includes our conscience, which is the most sacred of all property. Acts 24:16 We should strive to maintain a blameless conscience.
5). Education: Deuteronomy 10:12-14; 6:4-9; Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8. These chapters reveal the importance of the seed principle. Education operates like a seed.
6). Morality: Romans 8:19; John 15; Acts 24:16; Matthew 7:15-29; Galatians 5:22-23. The fruit of the Spirit.
7). Faith: Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 28; Luke 10:27. Our faith in God and adherence to His truth is the foundation for blessing and success in all walks of life. This is one major theme of the Bible. The Christian system of government as established in the United States of America had its origin predominantly as follows:
1). The Old Testament of the Bible,
2). The New Testament of the Bible,
3). Magna Carta of 1215,
4). Petition of Rights of 1628,
5). Habeas Corpus of 1679,
6). Bill of Rights of 1689,
7). Articles of Confederation of 1643‑1684,
8). Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776,
9). Articles of Confedera�tion of 1781,
10). Constitution of the United States 1789,
11). Bill of Rights 1791.
Sir William Blackstone (1723‑1780), the famous English authority on jurisprudence, gives the following definition of Divine Law as it applies to human or man‑made laws:
"Disobedience to any one of the Divine Commandments throws the whole structure of national life out of harmony with universal law." He also said: "On account of the blindness and imperfection of human reasoning, God has given a Divine and direct revelation of His natural laws...to be found in the Scriptures THESE LAWS ARE SUPERIOR IN OBLIGATION and NO HUMAN LAWS HAVE ANY VALIDITY IF CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAWS."
Let's take a look at part of the original grants and charters, more of which will be presented later:
1). To Christopher Columbus, 1492:
"Ferdinand and Isabelle, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, King and Queen of Castile, of Arragon, of Scily...For as much as you, Christopher Columbus, are going by our command, with some of our vessels and men, to discover and subdue some Islands, and Continent in the ocean, and it is hoped that by GOD'S ASSISTANCE, some of the said Islands and Continent in the ocean will be discovered and conquered by your means and conduct..."
2). To Sir Humphry Gylberte, June 11, 1578:
"Elizabeth BY THE GRACE OF GOD, Queen of England.. do give and grant to our trusted and well‑beloved servant Sir Humphrey Gilbert of Compton, in our castle of Devonshire Knight, and to his heirs and assignes FOR EVER, free liberty and license from time to time, and at all times forever hereafter, to discover, find, search out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories NOT ACTUALLY POSSESSED OF ANY CHRISTIAN PRINCE OR PEOPLE...and forasmuch, as upon the finding out, discovering, and inhabiting of such remote lands, counties, and territories, as aforesaid, it will be necessary for the safety of all men that shall adventure themselves in those journeys or voyages, TO DETERMINE TO LIVE TOGETHER IN CHRISTIAN PEACE AND CIVIL QUIETNESS EACH WITH THE OTHER...according to such statutes, laws and ordinances, as shall by him, the said Sir Humphrey, his heirs and assignes, or ever, or any of them, devised or established for the better government of the said people as aforesaid: so always that the said statutes, laws, and ordinances may be as near as conveniently may, agreeable to the form of the laws and policy of England; and also, THAT THEY BE NOT AGAINST THE TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR RELIGION NOW PROFESSED IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND."
3). First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606:
"I, James, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, King of England... We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the PROVIDENCE OF ALMIGHTY GOD, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in the PROPAGATING OF CHRISTIAN RELIGION."
4). Sir Robert Heath by Charles 1st, Oct. 30, 1629:
"Whereas our beloved and faithful subject and servant, Sir Robert Heath Knight our Attorney General, kindled with a certain laudable and pious desire as well of ENLARGING THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION..."
5). Orders of Connecticut, January 14, 1639:
"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the ALMIGHTY GOD by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the Inhabitants and residents of Winsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the Lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together THE WORD OF GOD REQUIRES that to maintain the peace and union of such a people THERE SHOULD BE AN ORDERLY AND DECENT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO GOD, to order and dispose of the affaires of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do, for our selves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter enter into Combination and Confederation together, TO MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE THE LIBERTY AND PURITY OF THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS WHICH WE NOW PROFESS as also the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us..."
6). Articles of Confederation, 1643‑1684:
"Whereas we all come into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, NAMELY, TO ADVANCE THE KINGDOM OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST and TO ENJOY THE LIBERTIES OF THE GOSPEL in purity with peace...that, AS IN NATION AND RELIGION, SO IN OTHER RESPECTS, WE BE AND CONTINUE ONE according to the tenor and true meaning of the ensuing articles...The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions BOTH FOR PRESERVING AND PROPAGATING THE TRUTH AND LIBERTIES OF THE GOSPEL and for their own mutual safety and welfare."
There is no doubt, and it is clearly apparent the colonist knew they were to establish a theocratic form of government which was to conform to the Word of God, that they were, in actuality reestablishing the Kingdom of God on Earth, over which our Lord Jesus Christ will reign when He returns to claim His rightful place over His Israel People: The Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples of the earth. Common Law rights were protected by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This is a Key Document establishing our right to Common Law Judicial proceedings.
This Ordinance was passed by the Congress of the United States. Article 5 provided for the creating of a maximum of five states which later became; Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The last words of the introduction or preamble to the Articles of the Ordinance, are as follows:
"It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following article shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States in said territory AND FOREVER REMAIN UNALTERABLE, UNLESS BY COMMON CONSENT, TO WIT."
These articles HAVE NEVER BEEN ALTERED BY COMMON CONSENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER AND PRESENTLY REMAIN THE LAW OF THE LAND. They may be found in the original forty‑eight states Compiled Laws if you were to check. Some points concerning the validity of the ordinance that should be considered is:
a). It is a Federal Statute. The preamble reads forever unalterable. It is in the Compiled Laws of many States. and it is protected by Article 4, Section 2, Part 1 of the Constitution of the United States and reads as follows:
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges of citizens in the several states."
Article 1, states:
"No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory."
Article 2, states:
"The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury...and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the Common Law..."
We should remind you that the Old Testament is the original source of Common Law and is found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The definitions of Noah Websters original finalized dictionary in 1828 were adopted by Congress and by the courts. His definitions were Common Law definitions and established a unity of language for the United States of America
The Republican form of limited government, just as established by our ancient Israelite ancestors, while encamped by Mount Siani, was established upon the premise: That each and every individual is the creation of the Almighty God, that each and every one has a separate and equal station to which the Laws of God entitle them. All men are created equal [in the sight of God] and endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights that are not to be encroached or infringed upon by another group, individual, or government. Among those rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness [the ownership of land].
Governments are formed for the express purpose of protecting those rights, maintaining the peace, and keeping law and order. The Government formed derives its just Powers from the Consent of the Governed themselves. When the Governing faction becomes abusive and destructive of these Ends delegated to them by the citizens it is the responsibility, right and duty of the people to disolve, alter, or abolish it and institute New government which will provide safe guards for their future security.
"For rulers [government leaders] are not a terror to good works, but to the evil...For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:3‑4)
This simply means the Government was formed by the People through a written contact, Compact, or Constitution within which the people delegate to the elected or appointed representation presiding over the Government for the People the Laws, Rules, and Regulations of power and authority they may exercise. The various governing bodies such as the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial of the Federal, State, county and local Municipalities must restrict their operations to within the boundaries of authority delegated them by the People unless changed by the People themselves.
This is the principle describe in detail within the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordnance, the Constitution of the United States of America and the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights. The Constitution of the United States being the Supreme Law of the Land, until Christ returns, as is the added Ten Amendments both have a Preamble that illustrates its personal Spirit and Intent.
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This emphases the fact that Government is established by the People, having only powers and authority delegated to it by the People by Contact and it is to be contained within those boundaries. The Preamble to the Ten Amendments known as The Bill of Rights is as follows:
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUC�TION or ABUSE OF ITS POWER, that FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."
This preamble explains the Bill of Rights as being
"Further Declaratory and Restrictive clauses" for the purpose of preventing "Misconstruction or Abuse of Constitutional power. Our forefathers knew that Constitutional power can be misconstructed or abused by those who are in the seat of governing authority, even though placed there by the people who pay the bills, elect, appoint, or hire them. These are Public Servants to be tried by the People themselves when found to be destroying, subverting, or changing the delegated authority by Constitutional Contract. The Laws of God intended that in each and every case the position of central authority for earthly government should be vested within the people, and no one else.
PRINCIPLES
We lay down the following as our principles of interpreting symbolic prophecy.
First: Perfect coincidence of events with prophecy, is infallible proof of the fulfillment of prophecy. It was in accordance with this principle, that Jesus proved himself to be the Messiah.
Second: The definition of prophetic symbols is to be found in scripture, or to be determined by fulfillment. Where a symbol has more than one scriptural sense, which is rarely the case, its intended meaning must be determined either by its context or by fulfillment, or by both.
Third: All interpretations must coincide with the literal and evangelical doctrines of the Bible.
Fourth: All the symbolic days, months, and times, are interpretable on the same principles as are the seventy weeks, and have a double, or twice doubled interpretation and fulfillment.
Fifth: All symbolic prophecy of great events is given in twice doubled forms, or is interpreted by symbols, or literally.
Sixth: The people of God are symbolized, always, in a dual character, coinciding with the spiritual and civil departments of government, growing out of the spiritual and social nature of man and the dual nature of the great law of love to God and love to man.
Seventh: The globe and mankind are to be freed from the curse, and the globe is not to be annihilated, but renewed with all the splendors in the gift of Deity, and be the tabernacle of God, the Holy of Holies forever and ever.
For our work, we ask the calm and charitable attention of the reader. We present it as a theory, a true theory, of the dealings of God with the nations of the world; but we would by no means compel anyone to adopt our conclusions against His will; we would rather let the demonstrations be examined, and persuade by invincible and logical argument. Our deductions are not the result of fugitive thoughts, but of unceasing attention by day and by night, without intermission, for more than twenty years. Our labors have been of unceasing attention, by day and by night, without intermission, for more than twenty years. In addition to this, it may not be improper to remark, we sought God for wisdom to understand the mystery which He said should be unsealed.
Through the pity of some, the derision of others, the rebukes of many, and with the good wishes of but few, we have steadily pursued our course in quiet to the goal of our wishes; and we now return with gratitude to God for our success. We commit the work we have written to Him who hears the prayer of the humble, and doubt not but that it will do some good to our country, our Israel brethren, and the world.
Should we be found somewhat in error in some small points relating to the future, it is no more than would be naturally anticipated; but we feel assured that we are not, and can not be. So far as the past is concerned, we feel assured that we are presenting to the public some of the most extraordinary proofs of the inspiration of [the government of the United States of America] in the scriptures that have ever been compiled in one place.
Being sustained, triumphantly, by the facts of the past, and judging the future by principles deduced from certain knowledge, we feel that our judgment, in most cases, will be found coincident with plain common‑sense views of things. That ill fed and wounded vanity may instigate the hostility to our work of small envy and jealousy, of pride of sect and self‑inflated opinion, and the hatred of the antichrists, of pride of sect and self‑inflated opinion, is what we expect to a small extent, and we rather court than shun such prejudiced enmity.
In every instance where we differ from others on the subject, we do so because they do not strictly conform to past facts, and by consequence must err, proportionally, with reference to the future.
In some cases; very exalted human authorities will be consulted against us; but we appeal, for support, to inspiration and to history and refuse to yield to any sanctified human opinion that is not punctilious in accordance with known truth. We claim to have discovered, that most old presentations are either erroneous in whole or in part.
Unknown to fame or to the famous, we appeal to common sense people, to read and decide our correctness, for on account of such we have written; we crave not the attention of chiefs and princes, but seek an humble place of consideration among the great Christian republican people of regathered Israel, The United States of America.
The New Jerusalem and New Zion as spoken of in the scriptures. Misfortune is the fate of discoverers and inventors generally, and we expect no exception will be made in our favor; yet, from a better sphere than this, we hope in triumph to descend at the appearing of the victory of God, and advent of that kingdom for which from infancy, each Christian child is daily taught to pray. If, then, some humble place be ours among the glorified, we shall be more than recompensed for our toil.
ISRAEL
To properly understand why America was founded as a Christian Nation, we must first present you with the information of where our people came from. When speaking of our people, we are of course talking of the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-Israel; the people known to the world today as the Anglo‑ Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples of the earth.
In our studies we have come to realize: That the White Anglo‑ Saxons, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred people are True Israel [Which means by inference that THE JEWS ARE IMPOSTERS: THEY ARE WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING]. And since this is so completely alien to what you have always been taught by the Clergy of Organized Religion; whom I believe to be, for the most part, nothing more than Baal Priests. That most have prostituted themselves to the enemies of Christ because they had rather receive the gold, silver and praise of man; more than the praise of God and of a promise of Eternal Life. Therefore this presentation is an attempt to show you, from both secular and Bible sources, that what we say about the Anglo‑Saxons and etc., is true.
YOUR BIRTHRIGHT
Some will say at this point: "What difference does it make, if we are Israel?" We must respond that it makes a lot of difference. If a person were to knock at your door, and inform you that on the basis of legal documents, charters, covenants, and the last will and testament of a testator, you were heir to a GREAT INHERITANCE, you would be truly overjoyed, no doubt. By the same reasoning, this presentation will attempt to demonstrate that if you are a natural born child of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob‑Israel, you are heir to an inheritance in Jesus Christ.
If you believe that you have been called to be a Christian, and you are of White Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic or Kindred people descent; then you MUST be indeed, a natural born child of Abraham, and are, therefore, heir to the promises of the Holy Bible. It can be demonstrated that there is a people upon the face of the earth today, who by legal documents, charters, covenants, and a last will and testament recorded in a Book called the Bible, are the heirs to the Grace of Jesus Christ and are thereby called to inherit Eternal Life.
This presentation is knocking at your door, so to speak, today. You may be heir to the promises of the Holy Bible. If you are called to be a Christian, and believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding you into truth, then you should carefully study this presentation. Because this could be the most important day in your life! Please do not shut the door to your mind. Open that door and let the truth of Jesus Christ come into your life. Remember, Jesus said:
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
THE COVENANT
"...if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:19)
To ALL Christians, and to those Anglo‑Saxons, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred people who are not YET Christians; who are searching to understand the Holy Scriptures, Genesis to Revelation. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate from the Holy Scriptures that those people who are called, and who believe, and become Christians, do so, because they are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob‑Israel.
"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." (Romans 11:2)
The promises made to the physical seed of Israel in the Old Testament, beginning with Abraham, confirmed in Isaac and established in the thirteen tribes descended from Jacob‑Israel have been faithfully kept by Jesus Christ.
"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." (Romans 15:8)
The basic ground upon which this discussion is established is to be found in Romans 9:4‑5.
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
In these Scriptures Paul very clearly establishes:
1). The adoption,
2). The Glory,
3). The Covenant,
4). The giving of the Law,
5). The Service of God,
6). The promises, and
7). The fathers through whom Christ came in the flesh all belong to Israel.
Americans have in their homes a book, called simply, "The Bible." This book is the religious book of 95% of all the churches in the English‑speaking nations such as our own.
Is the Bible a closed book to you? Or do you understand portions of it, while the rest remains a mystery? You do want to increase your understanding of the Bible, do you not? The Bible story begins in Genesis 1:1:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
In the rest of Chapter 1 we are told of the creation of the animals and all living creatures on the earth and under the sea. Chapter 2 is the forming of Adam, placing him in the garden of Eden, of Eve, their disobedience, and removal from the Garden. In a few more pages we read of the flood, the saving of Noah and his household, and the spreading of their descendants across the land.
We learn of the building of the tower of Babel, its destruction, God's confounding of the people's language, and their dispersion across the earth. In only a few pages, God covers many centuries, including awesome and terrifying calamities. Then God speaks to one man, a man named Abraham, and from that point on the Bible is about Abraham and his descendants. In Genesis 12, God says to this man:
"...Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:1‑3)
Then follows a number of meetings between God and Abraham. God later meets with Abraham's son, Isaac, and later with Jacob, the son of Isaac, and repeats the promises (Covenants) made with Abraham. All of these promises and covenants have to do with the future of Jacob's children. The rest of the Bible deals almost exclusively with these heirs of the covenants and the promises, called in the Bible "The children of Israel."
The Law, the doctrines, the warnings, and admonishments, are addressed to Israel. All of the Prophets are Israelites. All of the writers of both the Old Testament and the New are Israelites. It is imperative that the ground and foundation for this Bible Study be established upon the truth that the Bible is a Book written to, for, and about Israel beginning with Genesis 12:1 and continuing through the remainder of the Bible.
It will be important to hold to a constant thread of divine truth as we establish that all those who are called, Chosen, and quickened to believe and accept Christ, becoming Christian do so because they are the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. True Christians do not become children unto Abraham because they believe, they believe because they are the children of Abraham. Herein lies the foundation for understanding the Bible message of Salvation. To depart from this basic premise is to forfeit the basic presuppositions upon which the Holy Scripture is written. To clearly establish the Old Testament foundation for this discussion, let us turn to Genesis 12:3 wherein God Almighty had declared to His servant Abraham:
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
The families spoken of are those nations, or families of people who were to come forth from the loins of Abraham and who were to be counted as children of the promise. Confirmation of this may be found in Jeremiah 2:4 where the Prophet declares:
"Hear ye the word of the Lord, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel."
Again in Jeremiah 31:1 we read:
"At the same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people."
Finally, we read in Amos 3:2:
"YOU [Israel] ONLY HAVE I KNOWN OF ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH..."
We conclude that the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 is that all of the families (nations) of the Israelite people would be blessed through faithful father Abraham. To read anything else into Scripture is to distort the Word of God. Jesus Christ Himself declared in Matthew 15:24:
"...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Turning once again to Genesis 17:7 Almighty God had declared to Abraham:
"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
This Covenant of Promise, made to Father Abraham, was made to him and his seed after him, throughout their generations, to be an everlasting covenant. This Covenant of Promise made to faithful Abraham was an unconditional covenant made to Abraham and his seed after him. This Covenant of Promise was made to bring about the eternal purposes established in the Covenant of Grace, which was the Master Covenant established by God in Christ before the foundation of the world for His people Israel.
Before this Covenant of Grace would be fulfilled in the sacrifical death of Jesus Christ upon the cross, the Israelites would be given the conditional Covenant of Law which would mirror their sin, causing them to know that their salvation was not through the works of the Law, but rather through the Covenant of Grace wrought by the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:19‑20) The Promise of Salvation was made then to Abraham and his seed after him for an everlasting covenant. This Covenant was not established in Ishmael, nor in the children of Abraham born to Keturah; rather it was confirmed in the Seed of Isaac, in Genesis 17:21 where we read:
"But my covenant will I establish with Isaac..."
Again in Genesis 17:19 we read:
"And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him."
In Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:7 and Hebrews 11:18 we read that in Isaac was the seed to be called. This is absolute confirmation that the Promises made to Abraham would be fulfilled in the seed of Isaac. Again in Genesis 17:5 God Almighty promised Abraham that he would be a father of many nations. Although Abraham was to become the father of nations through Ishmael and through the sons born to Keturah, it was to that family of nations descended through Isaac that the Covenant of Promise would be fulfilled. Again we recall Genesis 21:12 which declared that in Isaac would the seed of Abraham be called. This company of nations that would descend from Isaac would be the recipients of the promise God almighty made to Abraham in Genesis 22:18:
"And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth (Amos 3:2) be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
We can gather the importance of the Israelite people who descended from Abraham, through Isaac by reading Deuteronomy 32:8‑9:
"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."
Israel was to be God Almighty's measuring line. Israel was to be the Elect of God. (Isaiah 45:4) In Isaiah 41:8‑9 we read of the exhalted station to which Israel was chosen.
"But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I HAVE CHOSEN, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called three from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, I HAVE CHOSEN THEE, AND NOT CAST THEE AWAY."
The Promise made to Abraham was fulfilled in Israel, the people who descended from Isaac. In Psalm 135:4 we read:
"FOR THE LORD HATH CHOSEN JACOB UNTO HIMSELF, AND ISRAEL FOR HIS PECULIAR TREASURE."
Since the unconditional Covenant of Grace, made from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4‑5) was made to Israel, the unconditional Covenant of Promise made to Abraham was necessary to make the Covenant of Grace effectual. Before Israel could receive this Grace, it became necessary to place them under the Covenant of Law, to expose their sin nature, and to confirm that their salvation was through Grace and the shed Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and not the works of the law. The Covenant of Law, however, in keeping with the truth that Salvation was to be for Israel, was given only to Israel.
ONLY THE ISRAELITES WERE PLACED UNDER THE LAW!
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord." (Psalm 147:19‑20)
This is confirmed in Psalm 105:6‑10:
"O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob HIS CHOSEN...He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."
The Old Testament Scripture, beginning with Genesis 12:1 through the remainder of the Old Testament Scripture, is written to, for, and about the Israelites. It affects the other races and people of the earth, only as they come into contact with Israel. After the twelve sons born to Jacob/Israel had multiplied into twelve tribes, this great family of people went down into Egypt, where Jacob/Israel adopted the sons of Joseph; thus making them thirteen tribes, which centuries later were lead out of Egypt by Moses, and into the promise land by Joshua. There in the land of Canaan all of the thirteen tribes were confederated together in a theocratic government during the reign of Judges which lasted more than three hundred years.
It was during the lifetime of the Prophet Samuel, Israel elected to be ruled by earthly Kings and was ruled over successively by Saul, David and Solomon. At the death of Solomon in 975 B.C. the House of Israel was divided into two separate and distinct kingdoms of people with the Northern Kingdom being occupied by ten of the tribes and approximately one‑half of the tribe of Levi; the Southern Kingdom being occupied primarily by Judah, Benjamin, and the remainder of the tribe of Levi. From 975 B.C. forward through the remainder of the Old Testament Scripture, Israel and Judah remained divided from each other with the promise that they would ultimately be united together and restored under a Theocratic Government. The Northern Kingdom of Israel, consisted of about 10 million Israelites, was carried into captivity by the Assyrian Kings between 741 and 721 B.C., and DID NOT RETURN TO THEIR HOMELAND IN SAMARIA.
The Southern Kingdom was invaded by the Assyrian Kings in 713 B.C. and a large number of Judah and Benjamin were carried into the Assyrian captivity to join the other ten tribed Israelites. The remainder of the Southern Kingdom was carried away into Babylon in about 588 B.C. and remained there during the seventy year Babylonian Captivity; at which time about 50,000 returned to rebuild the temple in about 536 B.C.
When the Old Testament Canon comes to a close in 397 B.C. with Malachi, both Israel and Judah still remained divided into two distinct and separate Kingdoms. A careful examination of the Books of the Law and the Prophets, together with the Psalms, will reveal that the promise throughout the Old Testament is that Israel would be redeemed and restored back under the Covenant. The Scripture in the Old Testament is replete with tremendous amount of evidence to prove that even though Israel of the Northern Kingdom had been divorced and carried away into captivity, God had promised to bring them again under the bond of His Covenant. Listen to the beautiful promise made to Israel and Judah by Jeremiah the Prophet about 606 B.C. when both Israel and Judah were two distinct and separate peoples within the House of Israel.
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Here is the promise of our God that He would make a New Covenant with His people Israel, both Israel and Judah. The Law was to be written into their inward parts and was to be inscribed within their hearts. This is further confirmed in Isaiah 51:7. Here is a profound presupposition in the Holy Scripture of truth. THE NEW COVENANT WAS TO BE MADE WITH ISRAEL AND JUDAH!
The Blood of Jesus Christ was to be shed for Israel, THE CHOSEN AND ELECT PEOPLE OF THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. When we arrive at the New Testament Scriptures of the Bible, the typical reader of the Bible, without a solid foundation of study in the Old Testament, is at a loss to understand what he reads in the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament. Without a valid knowledge of the Old Testament he cannot understand that the New Testament is the written confirmation of all the promises which were fulfilled at the first coming of Jesus Christ and others which will be confirmed at His Second Coming.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ISRAELITES
For an answer to that question, we will call upon Mr. E. Raymand Capt, a Bible student and Biblical archaeologist from California. Mr. Capt has traveled and studied extensively in Europe and the Mideast. He lectures on the Dead Sea Scrolls, on the pyramids of Egypt and on other archaeological subjects. Mr. Capt is the author of "The Great Pyramid Decoded," "The Glory of the Stars," "Stonehenge and Druidism," "King Solomon's Temple," "Jacob's Ladder" and the "Abrahamic Covenant." He relates the following concerning the tracing of Israel.
"During the last hundred years a number of archaeological teams have been working in the Middle East. They have unearthed and published the original contemporary accounts of the Assyrians, who took the Israelites captive. It is from these records that vital clues have come to light. In fact, these records are found in the form of cuneiform tablets. These tablets were found at Nineveh in 1900 and published in 1930. However, their relevance to Israel was overlooked then, because they were found in complete disorder and amongst about 1,400 other texts. The tablets were Assyrian frontier post reports, dated about 707 B.C. They describe the activities of the people called 'Gimira,' who lived in the land of 'Gamir.' The descriptions of Gamir described the area in which the Israelites had been placed just a few years earlier. One tablet stated that when the king of Urartu came into the land of Gamir, his army was routed, as the Gamira counter‑ attacked, entered the land of Urartu, and killed their commanders...
�The first archaeological evidence to establish a chronological link in the contacts between Assyria and Israel are found on inscriptions on the side of a limestone stele found at Nimrud, known as the 'Black Obelisk.' The stone was inscribed with the records of Shalmaneser III and an illustration of the Israelite king Jehu bringing tribute to the Assyrian king. An inscription above the illustration says: 'This is Jehu (Iaua), the son of Khumri (Omri).'
�Omri in Hebrew, begins with the consonant, 'Agin,' formerly called 'Gayin' which was pronounced with a gutteral 'H,' that is 'Gh' or 'Kh.' The Israelites would have naturally pronounced Omri as 'Ghomri' which became 'Khumri' in Assyrian.
�As this inscription was executed nearly a century before the captivity of Israel, we know now the reason secular historians found no mention of the exiled Israelites in ancient records. IT WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSYRIANS WHO TOOK THE ISRAELITES CAPTIVE DID NOT CALL THEM BY THAT NAME. Historians are now aware of the fact that the Gamira were the same people, who, about 30 years later, during the reign of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, again were called Gimira. [Notice the slight changes in spelling]..."
About 600 B.C. the Lydians drove the Gamira, or Cimmerians, out of Asia Minor, where they settled in the Carpathian regions west of the Black Sea. We find them called in the second book of Esdras, the people of Ar‑Sareth.
"...as for your seeing him gather about himself another multitude that was peaceable, these are the ten tribes that in the days of King Hoshea were carried away from their own land into captivity, whom Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, made captives, and carried beyond the river; they were carried off to another country. But they formed this plan among themselves, to leave the heathen population, and go to where the human race had never lived, so that there perhaps they might keep their statutes, which they had not kept in their own country. And THEY WENT IN BY THE NARROW PASSAGES OF THE EUPHRATES RIVER. For the Most High then did wonders for them, for he held back the sources of the river until they had passed over." (2 Esdras 13:39‑44 Smith * Goodspeed Translation)
Archeology has solved two of the greatest archaeological problems: First, what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Israelites who disappeared south of the Caucasus; and Second, what was the origin of the "Cimmerians" and the mysterious nomadic tribes, known as Scythians, who suddenly appeared north of the Caucasus both at the same time in history. They were one and the same people. THEY WERE ISRAELITES. Now may I point out what the Bible has to say concerning these same people:
"For, behold, I am about to give command, And I will shake the house of Israel among all the nations, Just as one shakes the sieve, But not a kernel shall fall to the ground." (Amos 9:9 Smith * Goodspeed Translation)
THE SO‑CALLED "LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL" REALLY WERE NEVER LOST. THEY ONLY LOST THEIR IDENTITY AS THEY MIGRATED WESTWARD OVER THE CENTURIES FROM THE LAND OF THEIR CAPTIVITY. And there you have it, an answer to our question:
"What happened to the millions of Israelites who were dispersed out of old Canaanland seven centuries before Christ, and who never returned?"
With the answer of this question about Israel's disappearance we have been provided with the key to several other mysteries of world history. Mr. Capt has revealed to us why it was these people of Europe who became the great nations, and who were blessed by God above all other nations, not only with fertile land and abundance from the seas, but with arts, science, literature, inventions, and discovery.
God has bestowed upon that one race, the White Race, almost every invention and discovery that has improved man's condition and lot upon the earth. Certainly, God made these offspring of Abraham a blessing to all the families of the earth. Mr. Capt has answered yet another question which is often asked of ministers, but seldom answered:
"Why, of all the people of the earth, has it been only this White Caucasian Race, these so‑called 'Gentiles,' who have claimed Jesus Christ as their God, and who have taken the Bible as the foundation of their religion?"
The answer: The truth which is avoided and even denied by the Clergy of Organized Religion, is simple. THESE PEOPLE, THE WHITE ANGLO‑SAXONS, GERMANIC, SCANDINAVIAN, CELTIC AND KINDRED PEOPLE ARE THE ISRAELITES, THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE! And that explains why every true Gospel Preacher and missionary for Jesus Christ for over 1,900 years has been of this one race. They are dispersed Israel, fulfilling Bible prophecy even while blindness in part is upon them, blindness of their own identity as the Chosen of God.
BIBLICAL PROMISES HAVE BECOME HISTORICAL FACTS
In the Old Testament God had promised to regather divorced Israel unto Himself:
"My flock wandered over all the mountains, and over every high hill; my flock was scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to seek or search for them...For thus says the Lord God: Behold, here am I, and I will seek and search for my flock." (Ezekiel 34:6‑11 Smith * Goodspeed)
Jesus made it plain He was the instrument of Israel's return to God, in the following verses:
"For the Son of Man has come to search for what was lost [Israel] and to save it." (Luke 19:10)
And:
"I [Christ] AM SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL'S HOUSE." (Matthew 15:24 Smith * Goodspeed)
The word "lost" appears 13 times in the New Testament in relation to Israel. The Greek word means "put away and punished." So Jesus was saying in Matthew 15:24,
"I am not sent but unto the put away and punished house of Israel."
In Matthew 10:6, Jesus instructed His disciples to go to:
"...the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
In Luke 1, Zacharias the priest, who was John the Baptist's father, said that Jesus CAME TO REDEEM HIS PEOPLE and:
"To perform the mercy PROMISED to our [Israel's] fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham." (Luke 1:72‑73)
When moving from the Old Testament to the New Testament you dare not lose Physical Israel.
"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew..." (Romans 11:2)
If you lose physical Israel, the seed of Isaac, then you will be unable to find a confirmation of the promises made to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Remember that according to Romans 15:8 Jesus Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers. If you lose physical Israel, then you will end up without the people that the Eternal God promised to make the New Covenant with. (Jeremiah 31:31‑34) If you lose Israel, you will deny the very veracity of God and turn the Bible into a shambles. If you fail to understand that the Israelites in dispersion were to be called by another name. (Isaiah 62:2 and 65:15)
And if you fail to understand all of the Old Testament promises of these Israelites returning to the knowledge of their God and His Truth, you will not be able to read the New Testament with any understanding whatever. You cannot lose Physical Israel when turning to the New Testament. In Matthew 1:21 we find that Jesus was to save His people from their sins. Israel was that people that was to be ransomed from the bondage of sin and death. In Matthew 10:5‑6 Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
In Matthew 10:23 Jesus Christ declared that His disciples would not have gone over the cities of Israel until the Son of Man be come. He was speaking of His Second Coming and meant that the Gospel was to be preached only among the Israelites, for they were the children of the Promise made to Abraham. In Matthew 15:24 Jesus Christ declared:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to go and teach all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. These nations that were to be Baptized consisted of the family of Israelite nations that were promised to come from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. The New Testament is confirmation that our God kept His promise to physical Israel of the Old Testament.
In Acts 26:7 Paul confirms the existence of all twelve tribes of Israel in 62 A.D.
"Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come..."
In Acts 28:20 Paul confirms that:
"...for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain."
The Apostle Peter addresses his epistle to the Israelites in dispersion. (1 Peter 1:1‑2):
�Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.�
James the servant of God, addresses his epistle to Israel saying:
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." (James 1:1)
Also remember that the entire Book of Revelation is posited on God fulfilling His promises to Israel. The Lamb's Wife is identified as Israel in Revelation 21:1‑10. The entire account of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Book of Revelation is directed to the Israel of God and to some of the great promises made to them in the Old Testament Scriptures.
When we turn to the New Testament it is imperative that we remember the greater portion of the House of Israel, now in dispersion, has peopled all of the areas of the world called Asia Minor, the Greek speaking world, all of central Europe, Scandinavia and the British Isles. The Churches of the New Testament were made of both Israelites from the House of Judah [Judah‑Benjamin and Levi] and of Israelites from the Northern Kingdom which were in dispersion.
The Israelites of the Southern Kingdom of Judah have been given the name of "Jews" in error. However, the "Jews" were NOT Israelites which the following Scriptures attest to:
"Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSA�LEM HAVE SAID, GET YOU FAR FROM THE LORD [in this case it means Baal ‑‑ #1167 Strong's Concordance]: UNTO US IS THIS LAND GIVEN IN POSSESSION." (Ezekiel 11:15)
Ezekiel gives a second testimony:
"Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains [nations] of Israel, and say, Ye mountains [nations] of Israel, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; BECAUSE THE ENEMY HATH SAID AGAINST YOU, AHA, EVEN THE ANCIENT HIGH PLACES ARE OUR'S IN POSSESSION." (Ezekiel 36:1‑2)
John relates the same thing concerning the "sheep" of the Lord Jesus Christ ‑‑ for all Israelites are called sheep throughout the Old and New Testaments. So we MUST remember, whenever we see the word "sheep" in the Scriptures ‑‑ It ALWAYS means Israelites. Jesus, while talking to the "Jews" He said:
"But ye [Jews] believe not, because ye [Jews] ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP [here Jesus is giving testimony that the Jews ARE NOT ISRAELITES ‑‑ but are impostors], as I said unto you [Jews]." (John 10:26)
Epistles are directed to Israelite Congregations made up from Israelites ‑‑ the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian and Kindred peoples of the earth; in their state of Dispersion. With this background in mind, let us now return to our primary objective and reason from the Holy Scriptures.
As we have previously stated: The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate from the Holy Scriptures that those people who are chosen and called and who believe and become Christian, do so BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PHYSICAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB/ISRAEL. [Now people of other races CAN be Saved if they accept the Lord Jesus Christ. But that is only on very rare occasions.
Any so‑called conversion of a Jew is for the purpose of subverting, with treasonable intentions, the Christian Doctrines as presented in the Scriptures!]. However, for the most part; Only Natural born Israelites can be saved: Only natural born Israelites were lost; Only Natural born Israelites were under the Law. Therefore Only Natural Born Israelites can be redeemed.
When people believe and become Christian it is because they are the Children of Abraham, the Children of Isaac, and heirs of the promises of God. Now let us examine some controversial Scriptures to demonstrate that people become Christian because they are the Children of Abraham. They do not become the Children of Abraham because they believe. God hath not cast away His people which he foreknew. (Romans 11:2)
IN JOHN 10:26 JESUS TOLD THE JEWS
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
Question: Were the Jews not sheep because they did not believe OR did the Jews not believe because they were NOT sheep.
Answer: THE JEWS DID NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE SHEEP!
IN JOHN 10:27 JESUS TOLD THE JEWS
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
Question: Did these sheep become Christians because they heard His voice OR did they hear His voice because they were His sheep?
Answer: They heard His voice BECAUSE they were His Sheep.
IN ROMANS 2:14‑15 PAUL TOLD THE GENTILES
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their CONSCIENCE also bearing witness, and their THOUGHTS the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
Question: Did these Gentiles [Israelites] have the law written into their hearts because they believed and became Christians? OR did they become Christian because they had the Law written into their hearts.
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin more."
Answer: The Gentiles of the New Testament, became Christian because they, being of the physical seed of Abraham, had the Law written into their heart and conscience; their inward parts and in their heart.
"Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings." (Isaiah 51:7)
IN ROMANS 4:16 PAUL TOLD THE GENTILE CHURCH AT ROME
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL."
Question: Did they which are of the "faith of Abraham" become the Seed of Abraham because they had the "faith" of Abraham OR did they have the Faith of Abraham because they were the Children of Abraham.
Answer: They had the "faith of Abraham" because they were the physical children of Abraham.
PAUL TOLD THE GALATIAN GENTILES
IN 3:7‑9
"Know ye therefore that THEY WHICH ARE OF FAITH, THE SAME ARE THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."
Question: Were the Galatians Children of Abraham because they had faith in Christ OR did they have faith because they were the children of Abraham.
Answer: They had faith because they were the Children of Abraham and therefore accepted the Grace of Jesus Christ. THE GALATIANS HAD FAITH BECAUSE THEY WERE THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM. They did not become the Children of Abraham because they had faith as so many would have you believe.
PAUL TOLD THE GALATIAN GENTILES
IN 3:26‑29
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew [should have been translated Judean ‑‑ Jew] nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Question: Were these people in the Churches of Galatia Abraham's children because they were Christ's OR were they Christ's because they were the children of Abraham.
Answer: They were Christ's because they were Abraham's Children and have been chosen by the Father, Redeemed by the Son, and sanctified and set apart by the effectual power of God the Holy Spirit. We belong to Jesus Christ because we are the Children of Abraham, rather than saying we are Abraham's children because we belong to Christ.
PAUL TOLD THE GALATIAN GENTILES
IN 4:4‑7
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, (See Isaiah 44:1‑2) but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."
Question: Do we become redeemed Israel and the Sons of God because we believe OR do we believe and become sons of God because we are physical Israel and are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ?
Answer: We become the Sons of God because we are the physical Children of Abraham, and are, therefore, Redeemed by the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and called to be Christian. You do not become Redeemed Israel and a Son of God because you BELIEVE, but rather you BELIEVE and are made a Son of God because you are the Children of Abraham and have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.
PAUL TOLD THE EPHESIAN GENTILES
IN 2:12‑14
"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us."
Question: Were these Ephesian "Gentiles" that were "far off" and without God in the world made members of the commonwealth of Israel because they believed and became Christian OR did they become Christian, believe and come back into the commonwealth of Israel because they were the physical Children of Abraham.
Answer: These Israelites who were "far off" and divorced from the covenants of promise and without hope were reconciled back into the commonwealth of Israel through the Blood of Jesus Christ because they were the physical offspring of Abraham. These verses in Ephesians Chapter Two deal with both the House of Judah [Them that were nigh as in Ephesians 2:17] and them which were afar off [Israel in Dispersion as in Ephesians 2:17], and the middle wall of partition, that is the division between the two houses of Israel, Judah and Israel, was broken down by the Blood of Jesus Christ as we read in Ephesians 2:13‑19.
PAUL TOLD THE ROMAN GENTILES
IN ROMANS IN 9:23‑26
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews [Judeans] only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee [Hosea], I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."
Question: Were these Gentiles made vessels of mercy and thereby Christian because they believed OR did they believe and become Christian because they were the physical children of Abraham an were thereby vessels of mercy from the foundation of the world.
Answer: These Gentiles who were brought to the knowledge of Jesus Christ became Christian because they were Israelites in dispersion, called Gentiles, and when they heard the Word of God preached, having the Word of God inscribed upon their hearts and inward parts (Jeremiah 31:31‑34) they believed.
The word Jews in Romans 9:24 has reference to the House of Judah and could have included Israelites from any of the tribes making up the Southern Kingdom, that is Judah, Benjamin or Levi. Moreover, if you will carefully examine the direct quotations from Hosea 1:10 you will find that this Prophet had reference to Israelites of the Northern Kingdom and would one day be called the Children of the living God.
This confirms beyond all question that the Gentiles Paul is speaking to were the physical descendants of the Israelites who had been put away in Divorce and then went into dispersion throughout Asia, Europe and eventually the entire world, with emphasis upon the Western World. Then to America where all thirteen tribes were regathered as promised in the Scriptures.
PAUL SPEAKING TO THE GENTILES
IN ROMANS 11:13‑18
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation THEM WHICH ARE MY FLESH, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the first‑fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee."
Question: Were these Gentiles of the "wild olive tree" made Christian and thereby partakers with the "natural olive tree" because they believed in Christ OR did they believe and become Christian because being of "the wild olive tree" they were the Children of Abraham.
Answer: These Gentiles of the "wild olive tree" became Christian and were grafted back into the natural root stock of Israel because they were the physical Children of Abraham that having been divorced and separated from God were reconciled and grafted back into the natural tree through the Grace of Jesus Christ upon the cross.
It is important to remember that the Olive Tree was one of several symbols used to identify Israel in Scripture. The Gentiles were called the "wild branches of the olive tree" because having been divorced and sent into dispersion, they were outside the commonwealth of Israel and were considered as uncircumcised and unclean by the members of the House of Judah [called the natural branches of the Olive Tree]. Also note that from the Olive Berries we have a precious Oil that is extracted. This oil represents the "light of the world" and the Israelite nations have been the light of the world. The Caucasian Israelite nations of the Western World have produced all of the Christian Missionaries, printed all the Bibles, built all of the Churches, enacted all of the Christian Laws, advanced Christian morality and elevated the light of Jesus Christ wherever they have lived. In return our God has abundantly prospered them and given them the highest standard of living in the world. God hath not cast away His people which he foreknew. (Romans 11:2)
PETER TO THE ELECT IN CHRIST
1 PETER 2:9‑10
"But ye are a CHOSEN GENERATION [Race], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were NOT A PEOPLE, but ARE NOW THE PEOPLE OF GOD: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
Question: Were the people a CHOSEN RACE because they believed Christ and were thereby made spiritual Israelites OR did they become Christian because they, being descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, WERE A CHOSEN RACE.
Answer: These elect Israelites who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia were portions of the House of Israel in dispersion and through Faith in Jesus Christ were being grafted back into the natural Olive tree. Peter's Epistle was addressed to these Israelites in Dispersion.
For confirmation of the fact that the subject people (1 Peter 2:9) were of the Tribes of Israel in dispersion, please carefully read 1 Peter 2:10 where the quotation from Hosea 1:10; 2:23 refer to the Israelites who were being put away in divorce and dispersion.
PETER TOLD THE ELECT IN CHRIST IN
2 PETER 2:21‑22
"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have know it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
Question: Did the Dog return to his vomit because he quit believing, OR did he turn from the truth because he was a dog?
Answer: The dog returned to his vomit because he did not really believe. You cannot turn a dog into a sheep! You cannot make an Israelite out of a non‑Israelite.
Question: Did the sow return to her wallow because she ceased to believe OR did the sow return to her wallow because she was a sow?
Answer: The sow returned to her wallow because she never really believed. You cannot turn a sow into a sheep. You cannot turn a non‑Israelite into an Israelite.
As Christians we dare not lose physical Israel when reading the New Testament portion of the Bible. God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. (Romans 11:2) God has not lost His people Israel. The Unconditional Covenant of Grace is effectual. The Unconditional Covenant of Promise made to faithful Abraham is being made sure to all the seed. The Covenant of Law has exposed the sin nature of the Israelites and demonstrated that not by the works of the Law, but by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, we must be saved.
ISRAEL IS ALIVE AND WELL ON THIS EARTH! The denominational churches of the Western World are full of these Israelites, and are often called "Gentiles," who are searching and seeking the truth of Jesus Christ. These millions of Gentile‑Israelite Christians who flock to the Churches every Sunday Morning are there because they are the Physical Children of Abraham and are searching for the voice of Their Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ! The Holy Bible is indeed a glorious Book of Divine Truth and Revelation.
LOST ISRAEL HAS BEEN FOUND! They are filling the Churches of our land! These precious people need to know who they are! They need to know that they are the Elect and Chosen of God, the Redeemed of Christ, and that they are Heirs of The Promise made to their Father Abraham. Praise Jesus Christ! Lost Israel has been found. These so‑ called "Gentile" Christians that now fill our churches do not become spiritual Israelites when they believe and become Christian. They believe and become Christian because they are the physical Children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob‑Israel. The faithfulness and integrity of God Almighty has been preserved. He has redeemed His people. The physical Children of Abraham is seeking to be spiritually reborn through the effectual power of the Holy spirit. THE WHITE CAUCASIAN GENTILES now seeking the truth of Christianity in the denominational Church World are doing so now because they are the children and offspring of Abraham. They are Heirs to the Promises of God. Because they are The Children of Abraham, they are Christ's and are Heirs to the Promises made to Abraham.
If you are descended from the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic or Kindred people. Then you are descendants of the people we have traced in the Bible and in history and are Israelites, heirs according to the promise, and the Bible is about you and your race. Do not take what you have read lightly. True to His promise to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel has redeemed us with His own blood. He has kept His Word to our fathers. He will most certainly keep His promise with us, their children, of THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST UPON THIS EARTH! We believe the time has come when God is casting down all lies, exposing the false prophets, and revealing the Truth to His Israel people. The key to understanding the Bible is the truth that we are Israelites, redeemed by Jesus Christ, heirs of the promise, Abraham's children.
ACCESSION
Today the great Israel nation of America is surrounded and invaded by the Red communist anti‑Christ forces of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38 and 39) as God gathers the nations of the earth for the battle of Armageddon. (Revelation 16:16) The wicked of the earth, who are the enemies of Jesus Christ, have grown strong and arrogant in our land. They have infiltrated our schools, the news media, even the churches and government in their attempt to keep you in ignorance of your identity as Israelites. They are attempting to steal your heritage that they may conquer America and take rule over the whole earth.
WHY IS JUDGMENT BEING POURED OUT
UPON AMERICA ‑‑ THE LAND OF REGATHERED ISRAEL?
The judgment upon America ‑‑ just as it was on Ancient Israel is and was a result of their national sins and their turning from Almighty God and His Laws. America, like ancient Israel has broken covenant with God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ; they have rejected His Laws, and have worshipped other gods. The sin debt is piled high in America, the judgment of the living God is upon this land. Consider the parallels between the sins of Ancient Israel and America, the Modern Day Israel.
SINS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL/AMERICA
After God established Jeremiah as the Prophet ordained to root out and pull down, to build and to plant, God takes command of Jeremiah's lips and begins to catalogue the sins of the nation of His Israel People. The sins articulated by Jeremiah reads like a current commentary on the transgressions of America and every other Israelite people in Abraham's family of nations.
Our priests and pastors have failed to teach the Laws of God. (Jeremiah 2:8) The purity of our Israelite people is threatened by race mixing.� (Jeremiah 2:21‑22) The blood of innocents, including aborted babies, is a part of America's national shame. (Jeremiah 2:34) The people are adulterous and practice prostitution. (Jeremiah 5:7‑8) Our people worship false gods and are guilty of idolatry. (Jeremiah 5:19) Our people are guilty of possessing a rebellious heart. (Jeremiah 5:23) Our whole nation is wallowing in covetousness. (Jeremiah 5:23)� Our nation has refused the Word of God and have rejected His Laws. (Jeremiah 6:19) Our leaders have oppressed the fatherless and the widow and shed the blood of the innocent. (Jeremiah 7:7) Our people have turned the House of God into a den of robbers and are guilty of stealing, murder, adultery, false swearing, and the worship of Baal. (Jeremiah 7:8‑10)� Our nation has rejected correction, truth has all but perished, and the Temple of God is a polluted house. (Jeremiah 7:28‑30) Our preachers and pastors preach smooth things and refuse to preach against sin, they can not even blush. (Jeremiah 8:12) God's sheep are scattered and the pastors do not seek God's people. (Jeremiah 8:21) Our people follow the customs of the heathen and decorate trees in their homes. (Jeremiah 10:1‑4)
Our Israelite people have broken covenant with God, and a conspiracy of evil men rule the nation. (Jeremiah 11:1‑10) The sin of usury is condoned in the land. (Jeremiah 15:10) Our nation has profaned the Holy Sabbath by buying and selling on this holy day. (Jeremiah 17:19‑27) Profanity and swear words fill the land. (Jeremiah 23:10) False prophets have turned our people from the worship of God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ to the worship of the Jews ‑‑ who are the enemies of Jesus Christ the Son of God, preaching lies, false doctrines and Jewish Fables. (Jeremiah 23:16‑37) And in spite of the treachery of these false prophets and lying priests, our people are content. (Jeremiah 7:31) The sin debt has been piled high in America, and our people have refused to turn to God and Christ in repentance. All of these sins and more are presently being committed in the United States of America, thus, the judgment of God Almighty is being poured out upon America. Unless our people turn back to God and repent; then the following is sure to happen:
ALIEN INVASION OF AMERICA
The present invasion of this country by uncontrolled numbers of aliens pouring in from the third world and every continent on earth will continue unabated. The starving wretched poor of the world are packing their suitcases and heading for America. Our borders are out of control and it will become increasingly worse. Asians, Mexicans and Blacks will soon dominate the political scene of America. Our coastal areas, ALREADY filling up fast, mean that the alien flood tide will soon spill into the interior of America. Ultimately, the third world aliens will be everywhere, from the jungles of Los Angeles and New York to the quiet countryside of the Midwest.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA IS BECOMING ACUTE
With the arrival of hundreds of thousands of aliens annually, the job market in America is more than saturated. Jobs, ALREADY scarce, will become impossible to find. Non‑whites will receive FIRST CHOICE, and the whites will find it increasingly more difficult to find a good job. The planned deindustrialization of America, high wages and labor union subversion has produced a loss of the work ethic and has put millions of people out of a job. Foreign imports, mass merchandising of consumer goods by factories in Korea, Japan, Asia and elsewhere, with our alien controlled government assistance will force millions more of our Israel people from the work place in America. We will soon become a nation of unemployed people.
PREPARE FOR A PLUNGING
STANDARD OF LIVING
The deindustrialization of America, the alien flood tide, deficit budgets at every level of government, massive unemployment, and foreign imports will cause, and indeed, has caused the living standards of most American to plunge. In some areas of rural America, men are fighting over minimum wage jobs. The high costs of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and utilities will make it increasingly more difficult for families to make ends meet. We can expect an even more drastic and radical change in the living standards of the middle and lower class of people in America.
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL DEFICITS, INFLATION, USURY
Will bring a total collapse of the American economic system. The multi‑trillion dollar national debt is now increasing geometrically, and the interest on this debt will soon be the greatest single outlay of the Federal Budget. America is ALREADY bankrupt and our people are fast approaching national bankruptcy. Both the public and private debt structure are reaching astronomical levels. The banking system, because of the actions of the Federal Reserve System, is teetering on the brink of an economic earthquake. All the power, finesse, and expertise of government economists, bankers, and politicians are necessary to keep the economic system glued together on a month‑by‑month basis. The voracious financial appetite of the Federal Government, State Governments, City and County Governments cannot be SATISFIED. The debt structure of this nation is taking our people into an economic abyss. The only question that remains unanswered is how much longer the system can operate with a Federal economic train racing down the mountain side with no brakes, and no visible means of a desire to break the Richter scale will one day take place in America.
BEWARE OF THE LONG TERM INSTABILITY OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AND ALL PENSION FUNDS
The American public must surely know that the Social Security Fund is always about an economic eyelash from insolvency, their comments to the contrary notwithstanding. The financial demands being made on Social Security will very shortly greatly exceed all potential of those paying into it.
Moreover, remember that the ever proliferating numbers of people who can qualify grow ever larger [This includes many aliens], while the number of people paying in diminishes. All pension funds in this country are tied to the stability of the economy in general. And all too many of them have their funds tied up in the bandit state, Israeli Bonds, at 3 to 6 percent interest [And the payment of these bonds has been delayed for up to 30 years ‑‑ which will give the Israeli Lobby time to have the loans dismissed, thus American's pensions have been given to A PEOPLE WHO HATE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! THE JEWS!]. Any major economic problem could spell disaster for all types of pension funds in this country. You cannot count on long term Social Security and pension funds to carry you through a major economic collapse. They will all go down the economic tubes along with the rest of Mystery Babylon the Great.
PREPARE FOR A NATIONAL PANDEMIC PLAGUE OF AIDS AND OTHER DISEASES
The plunging moral standards of America has brought about the curses and plagues of an Eternal God upon the United States. Because America now tolerates every form of immoral behavior, and perversion, including sodomy [Queers], incest, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, and sexual perversion of every form known to man, a legion of terrible diseases are proliferating in this nation and will continue to do so until millions perish.
The anti‑Christian sexual morals of the American people could result in the liquidation of literally millions of people in the next few years. More than twenty venereal diseases are running rampant throughout the sexually promiscuous population of this nation. Leprosy has been diagnosed in California. The plague is breaking out upon us, and millions will perish! One hundred and Eighty Million or more as related by Ezekiel 38 and 39.
THERE IS A CULTURAL AND MORAL DECLINE THAT IS DESTROYING AMERICA
Our country is now in the death phase of the Organic Culture Curve ‑‑ brought about by the manipulations of the International Jewish Conspirators. Our language, music, art, literature, drama, and dress habits are reflecting subculture standards of the Black Race. Profanity and gutter language are now commonly heard in polite society and are accepted behavior in the college and University Classrooms of America. Our schools have degenerated into cess pools as a result of mixing the blacks, who, for the most part have no morals or ability to succeed in an open society.
Our music has taken on the sounds of the Jungle Bunny's of Africa. Our art and literature are reflections of the Jewish humanism and anti‑Christian teachings of the Godless Talmud. Drunkenness is becoming a way of life for young people before they even graduate from high school.
Smoking and chewing tobacco are standard for elementary school children in many areas of the country. More than two million unwed teenage girls are pregnant in America. Venereal Disease is rampant among teenagers. Drug infestation of our population is reaching astronomical levels. A growing love of many Americans, in every walk of life, is getting high on drugs. marijuana is not a leading cash crop in much of America. The drug traffic is now the single largest business in America.
DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY IS ALL BUT COMPLETE IN AMERICA
The breakup of the family is reaching completion in America. One out of every two marriage will end in divorce. Working mothers, peer group pressure in the public school, television, drugs, profanity, decline of religion, and immorality have rent asunder the Christian Family in America. More than two million couples live together outside the sacrament of Marriage. Single parent homes account for about one third of all children in America. More people are lined up on a given day in America seeking a divorce than are going to the altar to be married.
Juvenile delinquents are proliferating by the millions. No fault divorces, throw away marriage vows, live‑in relationships, adultery, and wife swapping are now common place among those who travel the fast lane of America. Satan and his minions, THE JEWS, are attacking the Christian Family on every hand. When the family goes, the ground and foundation for the future of America is gone. No nation can survive the dissolution and breakup of the family. No greater calamity can befall America than to lose the institution of the family.
DECLINE AND END OF THE FAMILY‑OWNED FARMS
IS NOW IN PROGRESS THROUGHOUT AMERICA
For the past five decades our farm population has been declining in America, the family farm is now an endangered species. We are currently losing about 200,000 family sized farms per year in America. Thousands of farmers are being driven from the land in bankruptcy, farm foreclosures, depressed farm prices, usury, and skyrocketing production costs. The farm land of America is being swallowed up by giant corporations, insurance companies, and banks; foreigners, under various covers, are purchasing millions of acres of land.
The government, through various programs have caused millions of acres to be taken out of production ‑‑ making America ever more dependent upon imported foods. There is now an exodus from the family farm to the metropolitan centers of America; The backbone of America is being crippled and destroyed by the loss of the family farm: Because people are more easily controlled if they live in the cities and do not have the capability to produce their own food and resources.
LOSS OF BIBLE KNOWLEDGE
AMONG WHITE AMERICANS IS APPALL�ING
The United States of America was founded by Bible‑believing Christians. The first 125 years of American history were written in the Christian teachings of the Holy Bible. Such is not the case today. We have discarded the Bible from our national life. The American public is no longer familiar with the bible. The teachings of this great book of Divine Truth has been lost and we are now without the truth of God's Word. Apathy and indifference toward the Bible are manifested everywhere in this country. The Bible is no longer revered as the Word of God. The knowledge of this great Book has been lost by this generation because of the false doctrines and Jewish Fables brought into the pulpits of America. We are rapidly becoming a nation of atheists and infidels, lost and without the hope of the Saving Knowledge of the Word of God.
AMERICA IS NOW SUFFERING
THE LOSS OF HER GENETIC HERITAGE
The American Nation was discovered, explored, and settled by Anglo‑Saxon and Kindred peoples from Caucasian Europe. A pure racial stream of Anglo‑Saxon peoples poured into this country beginning in 1620 with the arrival of the Pilgrims and continuing to the middle of the 19th century or about 1850. This vast pool of genetic racial seed is now being lost in America. The alien tidal wave from third world nations, together with the integration, amalgamation, and fusion of the races now taking place wholesale in every city, hamlet, and village of America is about to deplete the genetic heritage of the United States of America. Integration, amalgamation, fusion, and miscegenation of the races in the public schools, colleges, and universities are bringing about the systematic death to a pure white Anglo‑Saxon racial population.
THE DECLINE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY
IS ALMOST COMPLETE IN AMERICA
The Faith once delivered to the Saints is almost lost in the mainline Churches of America. The pulpits of our Churches no longer resound with the soul stirring doctrines and creedal teachings of the Apostolic Church Fathers. The Knowledge of God's Laws is no longer taught from the pulpits. We no longer see the Seven Holy Sacraments of the Living God administered from a sanctified altar. We are losing the faith of our Christian Fathers, and our land is becoming barren of the great soul stirring Christianity of the first generations who came to this country.
The Modern Church is inflicted with humanism, lies, worship of Baal and of the Jews. The religion of humanism is preached from the pulpits and comes from the anti‑Christ Jewish Talmud. The great hymns of the faith have been discarded for the syncopated beat of the jungle bunny niggers, and Jesus Christ is no longer taught as THE WAY, the Truth, and the Life. Our churches have lost the touch of God. They are void of the Holy Spirit. They teach Jewish fables and the doctrines of Baal. Many of the most popular denominations in the Christian world are little more than houses of Baal where the false prophets of Baal preach for hire before a brainwashed congregation. But God Almighty has decreed the destruction of those who hate Jesus Christ and His True Israel People. IN A LAST BATTLE THEY SHALL BE DEFEATED.
"And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau [The Jews] for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be ANY remaining of the house of Esau [The Jews]; for the Lord hath spoken it." (Obadiah 18)
We shall be delivered, and the earth will be prepared for the return of Jesus Christ and the great Kingdom Age. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Amen.
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S VISION
The first President of the United States was George Washington; who during the war for independence had a vision, he later called "America's Three Great Perils." This vision was related to Mr. Bradshaw, reporter for the National Tribune and was published in Vol. 4, No. 12, December 1880. It was told to him by a Mr. Anthony Sherman on the Fourth of July 1859 in Independence Square. Mr. Sherman was at that time 99 years of age, his eyes dimming but were rekindled as he gazed upon Independence Hall, which he had come to visit once more. Where he related to Mr. Sherman:
"I want to tell you an incident in Washington's life ‑‑ one which no one alive knows of but myself; and, you will before long see it verified."
He paused and then went on to say:
"From the opening of the Revolution, we experienced all phases of fortune, good and ill. The darkest period we ever had, I think, was when Washington after several reverses, retreated to Valley Forge where he resolved to pass the winter of 1777. Oh! I have often seen the tears coursing down our dear commander's careworn cheeks, as he would be conversing with a confidential officer about the condition of his soldiers. You have doubtless heard the story of Washington's going to the thicket to pray. Well, he also used to pray to God in secret for aid and comfort. One day, I remember well, the chilly winds whistled through the leafless trees, though the sky was cloudless and the sun shone brightly, he remained in his quarters nearly all the afternoon alone. When he came out I noticed that his face was a shade paler than usual and there seemed to be something on his mind of more than ordinary importance. Returning just after dusk, he dispatched an orderly to the quarters of the officer I mentioned, and was presently in attendance. After a preliminary conversation of about half an hour, Washington gazing upon his companion with that strange look of dignity which he alone could command, said to the latter: 'I do not know whether it is owing to the anxiety of my mind, or what, but this afternoon, while preparing a dispatch, something seemed to disturb me.
�Looking up, I beheld, standing opposite me, a singularly beautiful being. So astonished was I, for I had given strict orders not to be disturbed that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the cause of the visit. A second, a third, and even a fourth time did I repeat my question, but received no answer from my mysterious visitor, except a slight raising of the eyes. By this time I felt strange sensations through me, and I would have risen, but the riveted gaze of the being before me rendered volition impossible. I assayed once more to speak, but my tongue had become useless, as though it had become paralyzed.
�A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession. All I could do was gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitor. Gradually the surrounding atmosphere seemed as though it was becoming filled with sensations, and grew luminous. Everything about me seemed to rarefy, including the mysterious visitor. I began to feel as one dying, or rather to experience the sensations which I have sometimes imagined accompany dissolution. I did not think, I did not reason, I did not move; all were alike impossible. I was only conscious of gazing fixedly, vacantly at my companion. Presently I heard a voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn,' while at the same time my visitor extended an arm eastwardly. I then beheld a heavy vapor at some distance rising fold upon fold. This gradually dissipated, and I looked out upon a strange scene. Before me lay spread out in one vast plain all the countries of the world; Europe, Asia, Africa and America. I saw rolling and tossing between Europe and America the billows of the Atlantic; and between Asia and America lay the Pacific.
�'Son of the Republic,' said the same mysterious voice as before, 'look and learn.' At that moment I beheld a dark shadowy being as an angel standing, or rather floating in mid‑air, between Europe and America. Dipping water out of the ocean in the hallow of his hand, he cast some on Europe. Immediately a cloud arose from these countries, and joined in mid‑ocean. For awhile it remained stationary, and then moved slowly westward until it enveloped America in its murky folds. Sharp flashes of lightning gleamed through it at intervals, and I heard smothered groans and cries of the American people. A second time the angel dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it out as before. The dark cloud was then drawn back to the ocean in whose billows it sank from view.
�A third time I heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn,' and I cast my eyes upon America and beheld villages and towns and cities spring up one after another until the whole land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was dotted with them. Again I heard the mysterious voice say, 'Son of the Republic, the end of the century cometh, look and learn.'
�This time the dark shadowy angel turned his face southward, and from Africa I saw an ill‑omened spectre approach our land. It flitted slowly over every town and city of the latter. The inhabitants presently set themselves in battle against each other. As I continued looking, I saw a bright angel on whose brow rested a crown of light, on which was traced the word, 'Union,' bearing the American Flag which he placed between the divided nation, and said, 'Remember, ye are brethren.' Instantly the inhabitants, casting down their weapons, become friends once more, and united around the National Standard.
�Again I heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn.' At this the dark shadowy angel placed a trumpet to his lips and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he sprinkled it on Europe, Asia and Africa.
�Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene; from each of these countries arose thick black clouds that were soon joined into one. And throughout this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I was seeing hordes of armed men, who, moving with the cloud, marched by land an sailed by sea to America, which was enveloped in the volume of cloud. And I dimly saw these vast armies devastate the whole country and burn villages, towns and cities that I beheld springing up. As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, slashing swords, and the shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I again heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn.' When the voice had ceased, the dark angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth and blew a long and fearful blast. Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shown down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark cloud which had enveloped America. At the same moment the angel upon whose head still shown the word 'Union' and who bore our national flag in one hand a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions of white spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, whom I perceived were well nigh overcome, but who, immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken ranks and renewed the battle. Again, amid the fearful noise of the conflict I heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn.' As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel for the last time dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly the dark cloud rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the inhabitants of the land victorious.
�Then once more I beheld the villages, towns and cities springing up where I'd seen them before while the bright angel, planting the azure standard he had brought in the midst of them, cried with a loud voice: 'While the stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union last.' And taking from his brow the crown on which blazoned the word 'Union' he placed it upon the standard while the people, kneeling down, said 'Amen.'
�The scene instantly began to fade and dissolve, and I, at last, saw nothing but the rising, curling vapor I at first beheld. This also disappeared, and I found myself once more gazing upon the mysterious visitor who, in the same voice I had heard before said, 'Son of the Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted. Three great perils will come upon the Republic. The more fearful is the third (the comment on his word 'third' is: 'The help against the third peril comes in the form of Divine Assistance') passing which the whole world united shall not prevail against her. Let every child of the Republic learn to live for his God, his land and Union.' With these words the vision vanished, and I started from my seat and felt that I had seen a vision wherein had been shown me, the birth, the progress and the destiny of the United States.'
�Such my friends, were the words I heard from Washington's own lips, and America would do well to profit by them."
��������������������������� 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." (Rev. A.W. Foljambe, January 5, 1876)
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." (Runkel vs. Winemiller, et al, 4 H & McH. (1799));
"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." (John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695))
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
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." (A.G. 014.33 (4-28-28))
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.
"My fellow citizens: THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT."
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." (Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists (1772))
NOT ONE PASTOR IN 100,000 WILL TEACH OR PREACH THESE VERSES BECAUSE OF THEIR CO�WARDICE!
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 shamefaced�ness 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 subjec�tion. 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 transgres�sion." (1 Timothy 2:9‑14)
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..." (Romans 13:3‑4)
��������������������������� 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." (2 Chronicles 7:14)
That government is ordained of God is a Biblical precept beyond reasonable controversy. (Romans 13) 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. (Genesis 9:3‑6; Romans 1; 1 Timothy 2:1‑2)
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. (1‑2 Kings)
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." (So join your local militia and prepare to defend our country and people against its enemies)
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." (James Wilson, Study of Law in the United States (1790‑91))
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." (Works of Fisher Ames, W.B. Allen; Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1983 (1854), pp. 297‑298, Vol. I)
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." (John 1:17)
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.
"Liberty...is 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." (Selected Writings of Lord Action, J. Rufus Pears; Liberty Classics, (1985), p. 7, Vol. 1)
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." (Selected Writings of Lord Action, J. Rufus Pears; Liberty Classics, (1985), p. 9, Vol. 1)
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..." (John Locke, Of Civil‑Government (1689))
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." (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)
The motto which Jefferson and Franklin proposed to go on the national seal was,
"REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD."
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?" (Julian P. Boyd, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 Vols. Princeton University Press, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 492)
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." (Julian P. Boyd, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 Vols. Princeton University Press, 1950, Vol. 2, p. 504)
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."
BIBLICAL CONNECTION
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..." (Samuel Adams, Boston, October 4, 1790)
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." (The State vs. Chandler, 2 Del 553, @ 555, 556 (1837));
"...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..." (The State vs. Chandler, 2 Del 553, @ 555, 556)
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..." (Wylly vs. Collins, 9 Ga 223, @ 237 (1851))
A CHRISTIAN IDEA OF MAN
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 progres�sive 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 Christiani�ty. 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 embodi�ment 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." (The Rise of the Republic of the United States, by Richard Frothingham (1890))
LIBERTY
����������������� "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." (Spirit of Laws)
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." (Judges 17:6; 21:25)
JEWISH SUBVERSION
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." (Joshua Jehouda, l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde, pp. 135-136; Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 30-31)
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.
STANDARD OF JUSTICE
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..." (The People vs. Ruggles, 8 Johnsons NY Common Law Reports 290, @ 294, 295)
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..." (Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant & Rawles Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports 400);
"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. (1 Bl.Com.42) 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." (Bell vs. The State, 1 Swan (Tenn) 42, @ 44 (1851))
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." (Strauss vs. Strauss 3 So 2d 727, @ 728 (1941))
REPUBLIC AND THE FAITH
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." (Runkel vs. Winemiller, et. al., 4 Hc. Mch)
What does Justice Chase mean?
"The Christian Religion is the established religion by OUR FORM OF GOVERN�MENT?"
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." (Article 22, Delaware Constitution (1776))
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." (Galatians 6:7)
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."
DEMOCRACY HAS NO FAITH
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." (Ch. III, art. 30, (1939));
"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." (U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. X, art. 124, (1939)
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" (Leviticus 18:23‑24)
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." (Deuteronomy 32:8‑9)
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." (Judges 1:7);
"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." (Deuteronomy 7:3);
"...I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people." (Leviticus 20:24);
"...so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." (Exodus 33:16)
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 Social�ists 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." (Article IV, Section 4, Constitution for the United States of America (1787))
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..." (Commentar�ies on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, Vol. III, De Capo Press Reprints (1970) @ 724, 725);
"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." (The Footprints of Time, Charles Bancroft (1979))
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." (Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, Vol. 1, De Capo Press Reprints (1970) @ 443, 444);
"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." (The People vs. Ruggles, 8 Johnsons NY Common Law Reports 290, @ 294, 295)
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..." (American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1828))
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:
"...in 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 REGU�LATED LIBERTY." (The State vs. Chandler, 2 Del 553, @ 557, 558)
"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 brother�hood...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.'" (The Puritans and Their Principles (1846))
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." (John Fiske);
"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 Revolution�ary� theory could be found than in John Locke on civil government." (A History of American Political Theories, (1903))
LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY
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. (See Dread Scott vs. Sandford 19 How. 393 (1857); Preamble U.S. Const. Declaration of Independence)
"We the People of the United States, in order to...insure... and secure...to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble U.S. Constitution);
"When...it becomes necessary for one People...to 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..." (Declaration of Independence);
"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 representa�tives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty." (Dred Scott vs. Sandford 19 How. 393 @ 404);
"...at that time [it] was perfectly understood to be confined to the White Race; and that they alone constituted the sovereignty of the Government." (Dread Scott vs. Sandford 19 How. 393 @ 420);
"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..." (Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776);
"... 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." (Samuel Adams, Address to the Massachusetts Legislature (1794))
THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN, FOR THE PREAMBLE PEO�PLE AND "THEIR POS�TERITY" WHO WERE 99.9% PURE WHITE ANGLO‑�SAXON, GER�MANIC, SCANDINA�VIAN, CELTIC AND KINDRED PEOPLE. THE ORIGI�NAL GOVERN�MENT OF THE UNITED STATES,���� AFTER THE BIBLE� ‑� THE STAN�DARD OF EXCEL�LENCE! FOR EVERY�THING IN AMERI�CA IN 1789.
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 calculat�ed to impress on young minds the right of nations to establish their own governments, and to inspire a love of free ones..." (James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (1825))
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 Command�ments, "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, abso�lute, 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..." (The Spirit of Laws, by Montesquieu (1900))
THE SENATE
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?" (Exodus 11:14)
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. (Exodus 12:21, 28)
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." (Exodus 12:41, 51)
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. (Exodus 24:1) 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 (Exodus 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24‑25)� 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. (Numbers 11:16‑17; 24‑26)
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years..." (Constitution Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3)
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 representa�tives] 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.
REPRESENTATIVES
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. (Numbers 10:2‑4)
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 (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?) 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 Numbers 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."
PRESIDENT AND JUDICIARY
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." (Deuteronomy 17:13-20)
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, (Numbers 27:20) 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 (Judges 4:5) 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. (Deuteronomy 17:12 and Joshua 1:18)
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. (Joshua 1:17)
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..." (1 Chronicles 28:2)
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‑citiz�ens 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." (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p. 47)
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 EN�LARGED VIEWS, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend." (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, President George Washington's First Inaugural Address, City of New York, April 30, 1789, pp. 51‑54)
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.
���������������������������������� FOUNDATION GROUNDED
������������������������������������������ IN CHRISTIANITY
"In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and forty‑eight, Montesquieu, wisest in his age of the reflecting statesmen of France, apprized the cultivated world, that a free, prosperous and great people was forming in the forests of America, which England had sent forth her sons to inhabit...The age could have learned, from the school of Voltaire, to scoff at its past; but the studious and observing Montesquieu discovered 'the title deeds of humanity,' as they lay buried under the rubbish of privileges, conventional charters, and statutes. His was a generous nature that disdained the impotence of epicureanism, and found no resting‑place in doubt. He saw that society, notwithstanding all its revolu-tions, must repose on principles that do not change; that Christianity, which seems to aim only at the happiness of another life, also constitutes man's blessedness in this. He questioned the laws of every nation to unfold to him the truth that questioned the laws of every nation to unfold to him the truth that had inspired them; and behind the confused masses of positive rules, he recognized the anterior existence and reality of justice." �(History of the United States, by George Bancroft (1850));
"Law as the order of the universe... when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest...he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for its direction...If we further advance, from mere inactive matter to vegetable and animal life, we shall find them still governed by laws; more numerous indeed, but equally fixed and invariable. The whole progress of plants, from the seed to the root, and from thence to the seed again; the method of animal nutrition, digestion, secretion and all other branches of vital economy; are not left to chance, or the will of the creature itself, but are performed in a wondrous involuntary manner, and guided by unerring rules laid down by the Great Creator." (Commentaries, by William Blackstone (1765));
"The concessions of Magna Carta were wrung from the King as guaranties against the oppressions and usurpations of his prerogative. It did not enter into the minds of the barons to provide security against their own body...by limiting the power of Parliament ...In this country [America] written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their govern-ment...Hence, our people have never been plagued with 'bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, laws declaring forfeitures of estates, and other arbitrary acts of legislation which occur so frequently in English history." (Hurtado vs. California)
But under the American Constitution, man‑made laws may not cross the Commandments against theft and murder; NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR STATE LEGISLATURE MAY DEPRIVE UNJUSTLY ANY MAN OR GROUP OF MEN OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!
"Law as a rule of human action. This, then, is the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated by some superior being; and, in those creatures that have neither the power to think, nor to will, such laws must be invariably obeyed, so long as the creature itself subsists, for its existence depends on the obedience. But laws, in their more confined sense, and in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior.
�Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator for he is entirely a dependent being. A being independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct; not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle, therefore, has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will.
�This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when He created matter, and endowed it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when He created man, and endowed him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws." (Commentaries, by William Blackstone.)
When the government for the government for the United States of America was formed and given power by the Constitution, it [U.S. Gov.] was limited strictly by the grant of power in the Constitution. And, because the People and the States seriously distrusted the new government, fearing it might try to centralize all power and sovereignty in its own hands, provision was made in Article V of the Constitution to make the Bill of Rights a part of the Constitution, as an additional statement of restrictions on the United States Government.
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficial ends of its institution." (Preamble to the bill of Rights, United States Constitution);
"Our popular government lay in embryo on board the Mayflower, all‑environ�ed with its only possible preservatives, popular intelligence and popular virtue. The idea born there, and embodied in a civil constitution...grew with the growth of the colonies, gradually expelling from the thoughts and affections of the people all other theories of civil government, until finally it enthroned itself in the national mind, and then embodied itself in our national government. (Policy of the Pilgrim Church, by Wellman (1856)); From the very first the Founding Fathers asserted this distinctly Christian American principle, and immortalized in the Constitution, that governing legislative bodies MUST respect and ABIDE by the DIVINE MORAL LAW. During a discussion of this James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and who was the foremost lawyer at the Constitutional Convention, later appointed Justice of the Supreme Court by President Washington in 1789 maintained: 'Parliament may, unquestionably, be controlled by natural or revealed law, proceeding from divine authority.'"
In this respect, the Colonial courts consistently denied the absolute supremacy of Parliament or any legislative body:
"That the fundamental law which God and nature have given to the people cannot be infringed."
William Harper, one of South Carolina's most distinguished Senators, said:
"The Constitution has laid down the fundamental and immutable laws of justice for our Government."
Because if any Act of Government violates these "fundamental and immutable laws of justice" then the Constitution provides that it shall be set aside. It is also a wholly and exclusively Christian application of Christ's teachings, that men should not yield unto Caesar [Government] the things which are God's. There is a Divine Basis for the Constitutional provision denying to the government itself supremacy over the souls of men. And it was on this ground that the Colonists premised their struggle for a government of "Limited Powers." In a famous decision, Justices Roane, Henry and Tyler said:
"The supposed omnipotence of parliament...is an abominable insult upon the honor and good sense of our country, as nothing is omnipotent as it relates to us, either religious or political, BUT THE GOD OF HEAVEN..."
James Otis believed that God Himself ordained limits beyond which Caesar, the powers of government, should not go; Parliament had no right to go beyond these limits set by Divine Authority:
"These are bounds, which by God and nature are fixed, hitherto have they a right to come, and no further...These are the first principles of law and justice..."
PRIMARILY, the Constitution was indended to prevent governmental powers from violating the principles of eternal justice; from stealing away the God-Given Rights of the people; from seizing upon the things which belong to God and to God's People! As Harper said:
"The Constitution is made to control the government; it has no other purpose."
The most important Articles of the Bill of Rights, considering the words of the Preamble, are IX and X, which ensure that the rights and sovereignty remain in the States and the People in their respective spheres. Furthermore these Articles [IX and X] by their very wording could only be used, for protection, by the citizens designated and defined in the Preamble.
BILL OF RIGHTS
When Saul was chosen to be the King of Israel, a writing limiting the kings power, was prepared by Samuel and deposited in the sanctuary where a reference could be made in the event of royal usurpation. (1 Samuel 10:25) A similar writing, A Bill of Rights, was drafted for his successors. (2 Samuel 5:3 and 1 Kings 12:4, 17) Yet, even with these protections, Solomon during the latter years of his life, reigned as a despot. Which shows that he ignored the writings; and by the fact of doing so he must have had the consent of the Israel Congress. Much the same as our last few presidents have ignored the Constitution and Bill of Rights, with the approval of our Congress. And just as our people are becoming unhappy with these actions, our ancestors became rebellious against his son Rohoboam� (1 Kings 11:43) when he mounted the throne, Benjamin, Judah and half of the tribe of Levi were the only tribes to eventually acknowledge him.
The others offered to submit to his authority if he would accept and abide by certain terms and condition, which were not accepted by him. Then when the king rejected their terms and conditions, they rejected him and chose Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:20) as their king, which established a separate kingdom. These actions show, that even though they submitted to an earthly kingdom, the people held their rulers to a stern responsibility for the manner in which they discharged their public trust. All this was the action of the republican spirit of the nation. A spirit, inspired, cherished and sanctioned by their constitution; the written documents which had been deposited in the sanctuary. A Bill of Rights.
From the very beginning, the central government began to struggle with the States and the People to centralize power in its own hands. (See the Life of John Marshal by Albert J. Beveridge, (1919)) So, the fears which brought the Bill of Rights into being were almost immediately realized and proven to be well founded. By these limitations, the United States Government was prohibited from making legislation in areas which interfered with the sovereignty of the States or the persons and sovereignty of the citizens of the States. Again, these citizens were White Persons. (See The Naturalization Acts dated prior to 1860)
The Congress of the United States had no power then to interfere with, or change the face of the sovereignty vested in the States and their citizens. (Dred Scott vs. Sandford, supra) As a result the United States Government had no success in centralizing absolute power in its own hands for the first 90 years of its existence. Any attempt to do so was thwarted, because the States merely upheld the Bill of Rights against the United States, in the State courts, whenever the United States without recourse, since the courts of the United States could not overturn rulings made in accord with the bill of Rights in the State Courts.
And, if the courts of the United States misconstrued the United States Constitution, the States could use Article V to clarify the Constitution by Amendment, and destroy the misconstruction. When the Constitution was framed, it was premised on the principle; that not only does the Constitution recognize and established the Higher Law which no Congress or legislature can transgress, but it clearly provided that the citizen owes his next highest allegiance to the Constitution [His first allegiance is to Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ], and when government officials violate the Constitution the citizen is bound to uphold the Constitution against the officials.
For the Constitution places even the President and Congress under the Moral Principles which it sets forth; and if they violate these principles, then the Constitutional right and duty of the citizen is to obey the Divine Law in preference to the man‑made enactment which transgresses it.
As Dr. Frederic Jesup Stimson states:
"...if the President of the United States interferes with your liberty unlawfully, you may resist by force, in proper cases, and always by suit in the courts; if a soldier or magistrate arrests you without cause, or a commission seizes your property, or a board forbids your right to trade, you can disobey him or them without danger, and bring suit as if he were a private trespasser."
This fundamental principle of the American Constitution that the citizen has all the rights of the policeman, the soldier, the President, or the Congress itself; this great principle that rulers, even as citizens must do justly and respect the laws of God and the rights of their fellowmen; this great principle is one of the most important applications of the Ten Commandments. The American Constitution says, in effect, to the rulers of the people, to the President, the Congress, the army, the police:
"You, too, are responsible to your Creator; to obey His laws, and to respect the rights of His other creatures. If you oppress the people and provoke them to resistance of your authority, you cannot use the strong arm of the law to seal them up in dungeons; no, for they can go into the courts, which recognize the Higher Law embedded in the Constitution, and they can have your oppressive and unjust laws set aside and rendered void."
Justice Holmes said:
"At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principle which denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."
This central principle of the American Constitution; that no one is above the law, nor beneath the law; that all citizens are "equal before equal law;" is derived DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE.
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty..." (Leviticus 19:15)
Our Founding Fathers were the first group of men in the history of the world to write into its foundation, the Constitution, of their nation a confirmation and enforcement of this Divine Commandment. No other nation, other than Ancient Israel, has ever dared to refuse to grant that the mightiest government officials, the President [King] and Congress [Princes] themselves, were above the law.
Even today, no other nation in the world has a written guarantee in its Charter Documents [Constitution] which insures to every citizen the "equal protection of the laws," which, as Chief Justice Taft said in the case of Truax vs. Corrigan, means safeguards "an equality of treatment of all persons." The Divent principle, "Ye shall not respect persons in judgment," was given its highest human expression in our American Constitution's provision for a "government of laws and not of men." This right of every citizen to law and justice on the same terms and in the same courts as any other man is the greatest affirma-tion of the Christian principles since Christ lived and preached it. Christ foretold that on the Day of Final Judgment each man would receive equal and exact justice, many of the last would be first and the first last, and would be dealt justice on the same terms.
"...without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work." (1 Peter 1:17)
Thus the Constitution of the United States provided for a system of earthly justice in which there was to be no respect of persons, in which justice was to be dealt evenly to all men "irrespective of rank, office, or station." The very first Article of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States is a striking affirmation and application of the first Commandment. The Founding Fathers were Christians and their first concern was that the power of government should NEVER be used to force them to pay tribute, or to "bow down" themselves to serve, any politico‑ecclesiastic organization. They believed in Christianity, the only religion sustained and sanctioned by the voluntary observance and devotion of the regenerated hearts of free men.
So they provided in our Constitution that no coercive ecclesias-tical system, no religion based upon compulsion, upon the sword, and riveted upon the souls of men by the brutal power of irresponsible government; no such religious system shall ever supplant the One vitalized by the voluntary obedience and observance of the free consciences of free men, the One breathing the Spirit of Christ. The Founding Fathers were determined to have no other gods, no religions based on coercion, suppression, and governmental violence and tyranny, forced upon them; and they guaranteed to the best of their ability that no such religious system should ever be imposed upon their posterity.
"...the whole purpose and policy of the [Constitutional] law assume that we are a nation of Christians, and while toleration is the principle in religious matters, the laws are to recognize the existence of that system of faith, and our institutions are to be based on that assumption." (H.C. Black ‑ American Constitutional Law)
As Christians the framers of the Constitution believed in that great principle of religious tolerance which is the finest fruit of the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ: the principle that every man shall be permitted to worship God, to seek righteousness, to pursue salvation according to the dictates of his conscience. They so profoundly believed in religion founded on freedom that they forever forbade the establishment on American soil of any of the anti‑Christian systems which are based on government‑directed regimentation of men's consciences.
They added to the Constitutional commandment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," then they added the clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They were well aware that for seventeen centuries, men had bled and died to vindicate Christ's teachings that men should be free to seek the kingdom of God according to their own inner lights; for seventeen centuries men had given their lives in vain to erect enduring safeguards about Christ's inspired religion founded on freedom.
All too many of the Colonists had themselves suffered cruel persecutions for their religious beliefs. And out of their sufferings, some had become so embittered that they were tempted to resort to the anti‑Christian practice of trying to force their beliefs on others. That had been the history of religion for hundreds of years.
One group would be cruelly persecuted by another for "heresy," for exercising freedom of conscience; but when this group, these "heretics," would gain power, out of the bitterness of their sufferings, they would resort to un‑Christian persecution of their persecutors and punishment of "heresy" as relentless as that of their predecessors.
The Colonists had bought liberty at a dear price, and when they wrote into our Constitution the provision that they would at all times and under all conditions share with their every single fellow American their dearly purchased freedom, their freedom of life and worship, they gave a new application to the Golden Rule! Therefore, Christ's statement:
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Is recognized and enforced by the first provision of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The things of the spirit, the "things that are God's," are placed by the Constitution beyond the power of the government to seize, suppress, control, or tamper with. They are sacred and secure from Caesar; the government has no power "to act upon" them in any manner whatsoever, as the great Justice Story stated in the second volume of his noted work on the Constitution:
"It was under the solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject (of religion and the 'things that are God's)."
The Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the Constitution follows Christ's teaching in denying to the government all power to infringe upon the things belonging to God. Speaking through Chief Justice Waite, the Court quoted and endorsed the reply of Thomas Jefferson to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions ‑‑ I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establish�ment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.'" (Reynolds vs. United States)
Therefore, it is obvious that the Supreme Court's decision stated that this declaration of Jefferson's "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect" of the first article of the Bill of Rights.
Christ taught that if men were to be free, in this world and in the next, they must "know the truth." And without freedom of speech and of the press; without access to the knowledge and experience of other men both living and dead, few of us could ever "know the truth." Denial of freedom of speech and press; of the right of every man to have access to the ethical and religious experience of other men and of earlier ages, is a denial to the soul of man of its sacred right to pursue happiness [salvation].
Freedom to speak and communicate with other men to know their opinions, discoveries and experiences; is the very basis of any search for knowledge which has even the potentiality of arriving at the Truth. Hence, it is clear that freedom of communication is a sacred principle implied and inherent in Christ's teachings. This is doubly indelible when we reflect all systematic attempts, ancient and modern; in Soviet Russia today as well as in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Church for the past two thousand years ‑‑ all pagan and atheistic attempts to crush Christianity have always been based upon a STRINGENT SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS.
When anti‑Christian governments set out to dethrone Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ from the hearts of men they first deny to those men the right to speak His Name; the right to tell the un‑regenerate of His Power; the right to spread His Word. Likewise, when the Christian founders of the American Government established and formed a Constitution which insured to men the right to follow Christ; to be secure in their observance of religion based on freedom, to be forever safe from the soul‑oppression of religion based on government‑prosecuted coercion such as they had experienced in Europe under the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore when the Founding Fathers embodied religious liberty in the Constitution they embodied freedom of speech and press in the very same article. The First Amendment, the first article of the Bill of Rights, reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
In the very same sentence the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press on the same basis as it does freedom of religious observance and belief. It recognizes that free speech and press are implied and inherent in Christ's teachings of religious freedom.
Christ said that those who experienced salvation, who came to know Him, were under obligation to Him to go forth into all the world, spreading the glad tidings and preaching the gospel. And the Constitution guarantees the right of all believers to discharge this Christian duty within the territorial boundaries of its jurisdiction. Freedom to communicate one's beliefs is as sacred as freedom to form one's beliefs in accordance with one's own conscience. They derive their sanctity from the same Source, and are fittingly protected on an equal footing in the Constitution!
Now let us turn to the "due process of law" clause of the Constitution.
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensa�tion."
The "due process of law" clause has truly been called one of the most important in the whole Constitution: for it looks beyond the ideas of justice of modern lawmakers and recognizes, in the words of the Supreme Court, "those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." Among these foundation pillars of "all our institutions" none are so securely safeguarded by the "due process of law" clause of the Constitution as the Divine Principles that theft and murder are wrong, even when committed by the government.
The Supreme Court declared that one of the prime purposes of the "due process" clause was;
"...to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government." (Hurtado vs. California)
Chief Justice Hughes, in his book, "The Supreme Court of the United States," states that the "due process� of law" provision,
"...makes a required minimum of protection of every one's right to life, liberty and property, which the CONGRESS OR THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT WITHHOLD."
Plainly, then, this Constitutional provision looks to a Higher Law than that made by Congress or the State Legislatures. In the case of Hurtado vs. California, the Supreme Court reaffirmed an earlier decision (Murray's Lesse vs. Hoboken Land & Improvement Company) delivered by Justice Curtis, stating:
"...due process of law must mean something more than the actual existing law of the land, for otherwise it would be no restraint upon legislative power."
The Court held further:
"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power... Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its objects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude."
Under the Constitution, an enactment of Congress or an edict of the Executive which violates the Divine Law against theft and murder is NOT LAW, it is NOT LEGAL, and it is NOT VALID. The Court, in the previously cited case, quoted and endorsed the statement [In his famous argument in the Dartmouth College case] of Daniel Webster "acts of confiscation," even though passed by Congress "under the form of an enactment," are not and cannot be "the law of the land." The Court emphatically declared that "acts of confiscation" and all "special, partial, and arbitrary exertions of power under the forms of legislation" are "not due process of law." The Constitution also recognizes that it is possible to kill a man in other ways than by causing his heart to stop beating. His life may be effectively taken from him by depriving him of liberty. Without liberty, a human being is half dead. Life is more than being alive; it is also living.
Thomas Jefferson said;
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."
The framers of the Constitution believed, neither men nor governments had the right unjustly to take away what God had given. In the case of Smith against the State of Texas, the Supreme Court held that deprivation of liberty tended to "extinguish" the value of life. The Court said:
"Life, liberty, property, and the equal protection of the laws, grouped together in the Constitution, are so closely related that the deprivation of anyone of these separate and independent rights may lessen or extinguish the value of the other three. In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor, his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords to those who are permitted to work. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude; and the Constitutional guaranty is an assurance that the citizen shall be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling."
Liberty is essential to the preservation of the full right to, and value, of life and property. To deprive a man of liberty is, in effect, to deprive him of valuable elements of life and property. To strike at liberty is, therefore, to strike at the Ten Commandments; to diminish one's liberty is to "extinguish" his very life. It is under Divine sanctions that life and property may not wrongfully be taken from the individual that the Constitution guards and protects. The sanctity of human life involves the sanctity and inviolability of all the faculties of the human being. A man is deprived of his right to live if he is deprived of his right legitimately to use his faculties and to direct his own destiny. The Court has ruled that liberty as guaranteed in the Constitution means the right of a person;
"...to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or vocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned." (Allgeyer vs. Louisiana)
The Constitution of the United States safeguards the right of human beings to life not only in this world, but it also safeguards their right so to live that they may have life in the next. The individual liberty guaranteed in the Constitution includes the right to seek all legitimate material, mental, and spiritual advancement.
In the case of Meyer vs. Nebraska, speaking through Justice McReynolds the Supreme Court declared that the guaranty of liberty embraced the right of the individual;
"...to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
To direct his destiny, either here or in the world to come, man must be free to follow his own calling. This freedom is insured to every American by the Constitution.
"The theory upon which our political institutions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that in the pursuit of happiness all avocations, all honors, all positions, are alike open to every one, and that in the protection of these rights all are equal before the law." (Cummings vs. State of Missouri)
The soul of man is safe, sacred, and inviolate under the Original Constitution. It is free to "captain its own fate" so to speak and to pursue its own salvation in whatever direction it wishes. And neither the State, nor any group within the State, has any more right to crush, imprison, or strangle the souls of men than it has to mar and mutilate their bodies. The Constitutional protection of human life is as broad and as pervasive in its scope and sphere as the Commandment to which it gives expression. Under the Constitution, no soul‑stifling government can experiment with plans to force men to live by bread alone. The soul of the citizen is as safe as his body, his liberty as secure as his life. He is free to live spiritually and mentally as well as physically.
One of the central teachings of Christ was the principle that the Moral Laws, as given to Moses and the Prophets and affirmed by Himself, was a statement of Eternal Truth, as everlasting and unchanging as Almighty God. The Founding Fathers believed that liberty is of the essence of the Eternal; They believed that God Himself was the "Author of Liberty." James Otis expressed their sentiments when he said,
"Liberty is the gift of God and cannot be annihilated."
John Adams reflected their attitude when he said that liberty is a moral right;
"...derived from the Legislator of the Universe."
Then at a later period, Abraham Lincoln echoed this conviction with the declaration:
"Liberty is right because Christ said so, and Christ is God."
Liberty, as the gift of God, is for all men, at all time, under all circumstances. And one of the prime purposes of the Constitution was to "secure" its blessings to every living American and to its "posterity." The Constitution follows faithfully the Divine Command,
"...proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
The men who framed the Constitution believed the Moral Law affirmed by Christ was good for all time. They believed a Constitution based on it and breathed its spirit was, and should be, "indestructible" and "perpetual." They provided for amendment to the Constitution to give wider scope and application to these Eternal Moral Principles. But they did not contemplate, in their wildest imaginations, any amendment at any time which would violate or invalidate these principals would be brought forward, well alone passed. They did not contemplate any amendment aimed at LEGALIZING a government‑sponsored violation of the Ten Commandments.
Indeed, the foremost Constitutional authorities agree that an amendment which would violate the Basic Moral Truths expressed in the Constitution would be itself unconstitutional; invalid under the spirit of the Constitution, even though technically permissible under the letter. Yet, this is the very type of amendment most widely advocated today. Many of our leading "critics" of the Constitution are condemning not only the Constitution itself, but also the UNDERLYING MORAL PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN IT. They are condemning the fundamental proposition that liberty is for all men at all times, that "Liberty is right because Christ said so," and that because it is contained in His Word it shall not pass away, even though the earth and civilization do.
They are condemning the fundamental principle that the majority, the government itself, must obey and follow the Ten Commandments. They are denying that Divine Law is binding on "the majority." They are assailing the basic belief expressed in the Constitution that Moral Truth does not change, that it is the same in one age as in another. And in so doing they are reaching beyond the Constitution and striking at the central principles of Christ, which are endorsed and upheld by the Constitution.
While it was under the "Original" United States Constitution, America was blessed by Almighty God; and prospered as no other nation has in all the history of the world. In 1789, about 2.5 million White Christian people established themselves as the COVENANT PEOPLE OF THE BIBLE; God's New Israel [The Great nation promised to Abraham]; and elected Jesus Christ as their King.
In 1789, and for the next 124 years, we were a Covenant People, living in faithful obedience to the COVENANT LAW OF THE BIBLE and in a right relationship with Jesus Christ. For decades, now, so‑called smart young professors have been teaching their students that morals are just "the fashions of the people," that what is right in one age is wrong in the next. For decades, they have been teaching;
"all morals are man‑made and as men change, their morals must change with them."
For decades, they have been teaching that the moral principles of Jesus Christ may have been good enough for our fathers but they are not good enough for us. A cancer spot of such vicious teachings has for years festered and putrefied in Columbia University; another in Harvard.
Is it any wonder, then, that out of these same cesspools of Communism should emerge the doctrine that, like the morals and religion, the Constitutional system of government of our fathers is not good enough for us!
Now, almost two hundred years later, the Christian Republic established in 1789, is gone! Barely a trace of that White Christian Republic remains standing. A new defacto democratic [Which is nothing less than an Atheistic‑Zionist‑ Communist] government, which is, ANTI‑CHRISTIAN IN EVERY RESPECT; has become the established government of America. We are no longer the citizens of a Sovereign State! We are now citizens of the United States; a new form of government, alien to God Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Bible and the political beliefs of our founding fathers. Most public officials, as well as most American citizens, do not realize Supreme Court Justice Brewer [Before the Supreme Court became the seat of anti‑Christ baby murderers], who served from 1890 to 1910, wrote a lengthy opinion, which presented and established the legal logic: AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION ‑‑ which I will presently present ‑‑ as God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ has ALWAYS led and protected America; reports to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Thus saith the Lord God; In that day when my people of Israel [America] dwelleth safely, SHALT THOU NOT KNOW IT?" (Ezekiel 38:14)
THE MOST AMAZING NEW
LAW IN 70 YEARS
Public Law 97‑280 was passed by the U.S. Congress in October of 1982. It acknowledged, among other things, that the Bible is "the Word of God" and "our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures." This statement is in Congress's resolution that asks the President to declare 1983 as "the year of the Bible."
YEAR of the BIBLE, 1983
By the President of the United States of America
A PROCLAMATION
Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible. Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land.
These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies ‑‑ a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades. The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
For centuries the Bible's emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery. Many of our greatest national leaders among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson ‑‑ have recognized the influence of the Bible on our country's development. The plain‑spoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than "the rock on which our Republic rests."
Today our beloved America and, indeed, the world, is facing a decade of enormous challenge. As a people we may well be tested as we have seldom, if ever, been tested before. We will need resources of spirit even more than resources of technology, education, and armaments. There could be no more fitting moment than now to reflect with gratitude, humility, and urgency upon the wisdom revealed to us in the writing that Abraham Lincoln called
"the best gift God has ever given to man...But for it we could not know right from wrong."
The Congress of the United States in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized, and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the "Year of the Bible."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 as the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to re‑examine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty‑three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh. Ronald Reagan
PUBLIC LAW 97‑280
OCT. 4, 1982 96 STAT. 1211
Public Law 97‑280��������� 97th Congress
JOINT RESOLUTION
Authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible." ‑‑ Oct, 4, 1982 [S.J. Res 165]
WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;
WHEREAS many of our great national leaders ‑‑ among them Presidents Washing, Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson ‑‑ paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";
WHEREAS the history of our nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Many Liberals, Anti-Christs and Humanists objected to this law, PL 97‑280. The news media gave it almost no coverage whatsoever. Did you read about this law and the "Year of the Bible" in your local newspaper; magazines; or hear about it on the radio; television; or even your church? Probably not. Following are a few other almost unknown or unmentioned historical events. On May 17, 1776, Congress appointed a day of fasting and prayer for the Colonies so they might,
"by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease God's righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."
On September 11, 1777, because the domestic supply of Bibles was short, the Continental Congress wrote,
"directing the Committee of Commerce to import (from Europe) 20,000 copies of the Bible, the great political text book of the patriots..."
The Congress also authorized chaplains in the Continental Army and General Washington moved to have chaplains appointed in each regiment.
On September 10, 1782, in consequence of the difficulty of importing Bibles, Congress approved and recommended to the people the edition of the Bible printed by Robert Aiken of Philadelphia. Congress described it as a "neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for use in schools."
"WHEREUPON, RESOLVED THAT the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he (Robert Aiken) shall think proper."
Like it or not; Love it or hate it; curse it or praise it; THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS AS A CHRISTIAN NATION, and the vast majority of its citizens were Christian. Our national motto is, "IN GOD WE TRUST"; our national hymn is, "GOD OF OUR FATHERS." The fathers being Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the Bible. We pledge allegiance to the United States of America as "ONE NATION UNDER GOD."
Our Constitution begins with, "We the people of the United States..." Article Seven mentions, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty seven..." Ask yourself, who is "our Lord" which is mentioned by "we the people?" Few people know, and it is no longer taught in our public schools, that eleven of the thirteen original colonies gave religious tests for public office. They required faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as a basic qualification for holding public office.
MASSACHUSETTS: Required a declaration that:
"I believe in the Christian religion and have a firm persuasion of its truth."
NEW JERSEY: Declared:
"...that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean them-selves peacefully under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the legislature."
VERMONT'S: Constitution required every member of the House of Representatives to take this oath:
"I do believe in One God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration..."
2VIRGINIA: Denied public office to anyone who denied the,
"Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of Divine authority."
The Colonial documents written up in the home country of the colonists who came to North America and was usually issued by the king of that country. The Charter granted to the Colonists:
1). Certain lands in the New World;
2). Established the general rules and laws by which the colony would be guided; and
3). Stated the purpose or purposes for which the colony was being founded.
The first of these Charters was granted by James I of England on April 10, 1606, for the settlement and possession of Virginia. Now, keep in mind that this is a government document. This document speaks of the colonists who first erected government institutions in America as having;
"...desires for the furtherance of so noble a work which may by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His divine Majesty, in the propagating of the Christian religion to such people as yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages, living in those parts, to human civility, and to a settled and quiet government."
The Charter of Plymouth council granted by James I on November 2, 1620, begins,
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are under-written...having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith...combine ourselves into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid."
The March 4, 1644, Charter, issued by Charles I for the Colony of Massachusetts Bay mentioned the orderly conduct of the colonists;
"...to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God, and the Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith."
The Rhode Island Charter directs the civil administration so that the people might:
"...be in the better capacity to defend themselves in their rights and liberties against all enemies of the Christian faith."
In the Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, it was written on April 3, 1644,
"It was ordered that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered to Moses...be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders..."
There are literally thousands of other documents that could be quoted, but they are almost never mentioned in our modern anti‑Christ classrooms or pulpits. However, the question is: Was America founded upon Jesus Christ and Christianity, or are the atheists and agnostics correct in saying America is a pluralist society, not a Christian one? The evidence is overwhelming that the thoughts about America by both king and commoner were bound up with a vision of the gospel of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. We do not refer to church or missionary documents but to civil documents signed by the king or another authorized people in the government. These are political or governmental documents whose main purpose, like our Constitution, was to put in writing the order of government and the purposes of that government. These documents are foundation stones, not of American churches, not of religious movements, but the foundation stones of the American government, foundation stones of the United States of America.
The left‑wingers and the anti‑Christs are not afraid to let you find out that Christians founded churches or missions; That is why the left‑wingers, anti‑Christs and humanists defame and ridicule the early Christian inhabitants of this American/Israel [Not Jewish] Nation. That is why they call those Christians "bigots," "straight‑laced," "blue‑noses," "puritanicals" and etc.
BUT THEY ARE DES�PERATELY AFRAID THAT YOU MIGHT FIND OUT THAT CHRI�STIANS ORGANIZED OUR AMERICAN GOV�ERNMENT AND THAT CHRIST�IANS ORGA�NIZED THAT GOVERN�MENT UPON JESUS CHRIST, THE BIBLE AND BIBLE LAWS!!!
They are trying desperately to prevent our American‑Israel people from finding out that it was those real Christians, not like the false Judeo‑Christians ones of today, who founded America and its original government. Even America's first schools were founded to give the young a Christian education so that all who might come to a position of leader�ship would be firmly grounded in Christiani�ty. Remember, Congress authorized the Robert Aiken edition of the Bible "for use in schools."
Kings College, which is now Columbia University, advertised,
"The chief thing that is aimed at in this college is to teach and engage the children to know God in Jesus Christ, and to live and serve Him, in all sobriety, Godliness, and Righteousness of life with a perfect heart, and a willing mind."
Amherst, Dartmouth and Yale were established for training in the Christian faith. For the first century 40 percent of Yales's graduates became ministers of the Gospel. Mr. Harvard, in founding Harvard University said,
"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning."
How times have changed. Today, many of our states prohibit reading the Bible in our Public Schools; which were originally established to teach the reading and the study of the Bible. Today, the anti‑Christ government schools, teach our children, a most horrendous LIE,
"Oh, yes, there were some Christians who came over here, and they may have made some Christian statements, and they formed churches, but most came to America for gold or for land and therefore the government had nothing to do with Christianity."
Don't let them fool you, my fellow White American Countrymen, for their intentions in deceiving you are as base as their methods for doing so. They have forced upon us all kinds of non‑Christian and anti‑ Christian laws and practices. Because they wanted a non‑Christian and anti‑Christ government here in America. And they knew it never would have been possible to install such government if America's Christians had really understood that our original form of government, both local and national; that all of our original laws came from God's Word, the Bible. In addition to the foregoing, perhaps we should point out at least one of the many in the body of the Constitution itself. Such as Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5:
"[Money, weights and measure. ‑‑ 5.] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and FIX THE STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEA�SURES."
This is based upon the Biblical standards as set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
"Just balances, just weights...shall ye have..." (Leviticus 19:36);
"Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have." (Deuteronomy 25:13‑15);
"A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight." (Proverbs 11:1);
"A just weight and balance are the Lord's." (Proverbs 16:11);
"Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord." (Proverbs 20:10)
About the coinage of money:
"Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath...And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh." (Ezekiel 45:10‑12)
To demonstrate how difficult it would have been for them to sweep aside our Christian laws, if our people had known they were really Christian laws, we will consider a few of the things they are doing to us today. For example, our nations leaders are making treaties with non‑Christian, or anti‑Christian nations; thus they are, in fact, committing a trespass against God's Laws concerning covenants or treaties with His People's enemies:
"...thou shalt make no covenant with them..." (Deuteronomy 7:2)
Not only that but they are committing treason by giving them aid and comfort and helping them in their anti‑ Christ activities. Would we, as Christians, accept that and sit by so silently if we realized such things are in opposition to both God's Law and the principles of the Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers.
What about abortion? Have you noticed how the pro‑ abortionists use the phrase, "We don't believe you should force your religion upon others?" Notice "they" identify the opposition to abortions by the term "religion," and of course the opposition to abortion is the Christian religion. Yet these immoral hypocrites freely try to impose their murderous standards upon us.
INFANTICIDE:
INCORRECTLY CALLED ABORTION
According to Webster's Dictionary the definition of infanticide is the murder of an infant. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditated malice [the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause of excuses]. The definition of abortion is,
"The expulsion of the human fetus prematurely, particularly at any time before it is viable [capable of living on its own]; miscarriage."
Today, infanticidists [ONE WHO MURDERS AN INFANT, per Webster's Dictionary], using a method called Dilation and Curettage, cutting the squirming and resisting baby's body and placenta into pieces with a loop‑shaped steel knife and suck them into a jar. Because it is struggling and trying to escape it is apparent that even the baby knows that it is a human being and is trying to protect its' life. From the jar the baby's body pieces are reassembled on a table to verify that all the parts have been removed. This is a far cry from a miscarriage whereby the human body naturally expels the unborn infant.
We are presenting an argument that infanticide [incorrectly called abortion] is actually the murder of an unborn infant and is NOT a right of privacy due to the mother. It will also set forth the argument that the changing of the meanings of the words describing the positions taken by so‑called Pro‑Lifers and Pro‑Deathers are actually distorting what the issues really are.
We will only address situations where there has not been a pregnancy caused by rape or incest, or situations where the mother's life would be in danger if the baby's life is not terminated. Approximately 95% to 98% of all unborn infanticide is for conveniences' sake. Why is a fetus a person in the sense in which a baby is? Since no sane person would say that it is lawful to kill a baby, if it is shown that a fetus is in fact a baby, then killing a fetus would be tantamount to murder! Biblically it can be shown that fetuses in the womb struggled against each other as evidenced by Genesis 25:22. Here we read (NASB)
"But the children struggled together within her; and she [Rebecca] said, If it is so, why then am I this way? so she went to inquire of the Lord."
Verse 23,
"And the Lord said to her, Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."
Obviously in order for one of the fetuses to struggle with the other he had to be conscious of the fact that the other fetus was also a human being. Why have strife with a nonentity? It would accomplish nothing. In Psalm 139:13 David states (KJV),
"For Thou has possessed my reins: thou hast COVERED me in my mother's womb."
The word covered in Strong's is #5526. The word is "sakak" and means "prop. to entwine as a screen; by impl. to fence in, cover over, (fig.) protect." It is the same word used in Exodus 33:22 which states "and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you [Moses] in the cleft of the rock and COVER you with My hand until I have passed by." Therefore, it can be seen from this verse that protection IN THE WOMB is essential.
In Ecclesiastes 11:5 Solomon writes (NASB),
"Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones formed in the WOMB of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things."
The New English Bible adds the words,
"and living spirit in the WOMB" in this verse also.
Luke 1:15 states:
"For he [John] will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's WOMB."
Ecclesiastes 12:7 states (KJV),
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
When is the spirit given to man ‑ at birth or at conception? Without the "breath of life" man cannot exist. Inside or outside the womb.
Justice Harry Blackmun, speaking for the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, stated in the Roe vs. Wade (1973) decision that the pregnancy may be terminated within the first three months at the mother's discretion [convenience]. If the mother's health has to be protected, then in the second three months the states may restrict, but NOT prohibit termination of the pregnancy. In the last three months a state MAY restrict or even prohibit infanticide to protect the life of the fetus, except when the mother's life is in danger.
In effect the seven U.S. Supreme Court justices decided to play God by making it lawful to commit murder. By doing this and in the name of "trying to protect a woman's right to privacy" they violated the very U.S. Constitution they had sworn to uphold. In fact, the Jewish Justice Blackmun could not point to a specific constitutional guarantee to justify the court's ruling.
Instead, he rationalized the decision on the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment's [an Amendment which came straight from Satan's throne] Due Process clause; and on the medical ethics and standards of another Jew, Dr. Edelstein. It will be shown further on in this report the fallacy of this kind of thinking because one's right to privacy can extend only to the point of infringement on someone else's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion has become an overt means of child sacrifice which the Jews have instituted under their de facto laws. Which is simply a covert means of child sacrifice which has been part of their infamous "ritual murders, which Jews have been accused through the ages." In this practice, the Jewish abortion doctors and nurses take;
"the blood of the sacrificed Christian (child) is mixed with flour to make the unleavened bread (known as Haman Ears, Haman Cakes and etc., in remembrance of the slaughter of thousands of White Israelites as recorded in the book of Esther in the Bible. The only book in the Bible the name of Yahweh never appears. The only Jewish book in all of the Bible, the claims of the Jews and their lackeys notwithstanding) eaten at (the Jewish) Passover." (The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization, Ed. Martin Gilbert, MacMillan Pub. Co., 1990, p. 125)
Thus, we can clearly see that the practice of abortion, which conforms very well with the Jewish ritual of child sacrifice to idols such as Molech, which is condemned by Almighty God in the Scriptures as an abomination. However, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud recognizes such sacrifice as normal: "giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry." (Sanhedrin 64a) Molech was a god of the Canaanites and Babylonians, and Babylon is the bedrock of the Jewish Talmud and Jewish tradition. This deity was the center of child sacrifice. Plus the fact that THE JEWISH TALMUD TEACHES THAT THE EXTERMINATION OF CHRISTIANS IS A NECESSARY SACRIFICE TO GOD. (Zohar II, 43a)
Proof of the above came most unexpectedly in March 1990, when an unprecedented display of Jewish contrition and humility was witnessed in York, England. There were four days of religious occasions, including some in York Minster, IN MEMORY OF CHRISTIAN CHILDREN WHO WERE CRUCIFIED, TORTURED AND BLED TO DEATH ALL OVER EUROPE IN MEDIEVAL TIMES TO SATISFY JEWISH RELIGIOUS RITUALS!
Justices White and Rehnquist, the two dissenting voters, probably stated it best when they said
"the majority's judgement was directed by its' own dislikes, not by any constitutional compass. In the absence of guiding principles, they asserted, the majority justices simply substituted their views for the view of the state legislatures whose abortion regulations they invalidated."
These state legislators were elected by a majority in each state to present their constituents' view of anti‑death.
The Declaration of Independence states;
"That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."
When are the men that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence created? The day the human being leaves the womb or the day of conception? Obviously the human life begins at conception, because if you do not have conception you will never have the human being. If the human life begins at conception, then the human life has certain unalienable rights. These are rights that are incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred whether or not the individual can speak for himself. Speaking in general terms the right of one individual's privacy ends where the actual life of another individual starts. For example, if one's next door neighbor is strangling his three year old son in his house do we reason to ourselves "that is none of my business; it is his son; and he has the 'right of privacy' to do whatever he pleases to his son" or do we take action to prevent the potential murder from occurring, because the "right to life" is a higher right than the dad's "right to privacy."
DISTORTING WORD MEANINGS
In the abortion [infanticide ‑ the right to Murder a baby] conflict we have two groups each "for" their particular issue. One is called "Pro‑Life" and the other is called "Pro‑Choice." Neither group, as named, is directly opposed to the other. Defining these two groups in general terms "Pro‑Life" is not the opposite of "Pro‑Choice." However, in fact the "Pro‑Choice" groups are actually Pro‑Death [Pro‑Murder], since they maintain that murder is a "choice." By calling the Pro‑Death group "Pro‑Choice" one could get a distorted view of what the "Pro‑Choice" group really represents. WHEN IT COMES TO MURDER THERE ARE NO‑CHOICES. A choice to do wring to another human being is no choice at all! If you are for something, you are against its opposite. If you are pro‑life, then you are against someone having the "choice" to murder an infant. Since the death is the opposite of life, the reverse would also be true. If you are pro‑death, you would be anti‑life [not "Pro‑Choice"].
Speaking in general terms we are all "pro‑choice," which is the opposite of compulsion. Everyone believes that each individual has the right or freedom to do what they want. However, the freedom of each individual to do what they want extends only to the point of infringing on someone else's "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness [property]." Thus, we see that individuals that are pro‑life [opposed to murder] are also actually pro‑choice [opposed to compulsion] to the extent those actions do not infringe on someone else's "life liberty, or pursuit of happiness [property]."
However, pro‑life proponents believe that a choice to do wrong [murder an unborn infant] is not a choice at all. Infant murder outside the womb or inside the womb is wrong. Pro‑Death proponents are "Pro‑Life" when it comes to their life, but cannot respect the life of others. And they will take your life if you oppose them, and they get the chance. Make no mistake about it. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the development and life of an infant in the womb when they allowed the states the freedom to regulate or prohibit infanticide in the last six months of pregnancy. Why regulate or prohibit infanticide in the womb if the infant is not a human being?
Since they have allowed the states to regulate or prohibit infanticide in certain cases we find that the real question the seven U.S. Supreme Court Justices raised is "WHEN does the infant become a human being in the womb?" and NOT "IS the infant a human being in the womb?" If they wanted to ask the question "IS the infant a human being in the womb?" then they would NOT have regulated the state on the last two trimesters. So we must conclude that the learned justices recognized the fact that the fetus IS A HUMAN BEING: therefore, they knew abortion [infanticide] was/is murder but they gave women the right to do so for a limited period of time if they so desired! Thus the Justices have been guilty of being an accomplish to the murder of literally millions of babies since 1973!
Another proposed dilemma in this issue is the question of freedom vs. order. Does the freedom of a woman to "do what she wants with her body" take priority over "the killing of unborn babies" [order]? Missing from the dilemma is the issue of "the freedom of the baby." Most Pro‑Death advocates seem to forget that the woman had the choice of abstaining from sex or using birth control methods to prevent conception.
These women lost their freedom of having the abortion at the time of conception. As a result of the seven Supreme Court justices determination that "freedom of the woman" takes priority over "freedom and life of the baby," we have had, since 1973, over 26‑million innocent unborn babies murdered. This is equivalent to the sum population of more than 12 U.S. states or approximately 1/10th of the current U.S. population.
IRRATIONALITY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
John Ankerberg and John Weldon in their book "When Does Life Begin?" pointed out the irrationality of the Supreme Court's decision. They stated
"Animals are now guaranteed more legal rights and protections than unborn children...The very same Supreme Court which made possible the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn human babies stopped the construction of the $116‑million Tellico Dam in Tennessee merely because it might cause a three‑inch fish known as the "snail darter" to become extinct! We can do horrible things to the pre‑born that we are legally prohibited from doing to dogs or even hamsters! Of course the Queers do not want any harm to come to the hamster, they like to cram them up each others ass for an exotic thrill! How sick can one get?
�Doctors were charged to both save life and to destroy it. All laws attempting to prohibit abortion after viability have been declared unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court does all 'that two doctors be present when viable [babies able to live outside the womb] infants are aborted; one TO KILL THE BABY THROUGH ABORTION [infanticide] and one to care for the infant should the first doctor FAIL TO MURDER THE BABY!' Further, if during an abortion procedure the child is killed while in the womb, no law is broken, but if that same child is removed from the womb and Murdered outside the woman, the physician is liable to a charge of murder!"
RIGHT TO LIVE DENIED
The other legal rights of the unborn were maintained; only their right to live was denied. In property and inheritance law Anglo‑American jurisprudence has scrupulously maintained the rights of the unborn, accepting that human lie begins at conception. All of us are familiar with "wrongful death" lawsuits against persons who accidentally injure unborn children to the point of their death.
"To this day, the law recognizes unborn children as persons entitled to all these rights."
In fact, criminals who have assaulted pregnant women have been successfully prosecuted for murder when the unborn child has been killed. Nevertheless, the law regards the unborn as a non‑person when a mother is willing to destroy it.
In conclusion, we see that regardless of the terminology used by either side the living being has its life abruptly ended in infanticide. No matter how much it may fight to stay alive in the womb it is certainly fighting a hopeless battle. Probably not one of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted "Pro‑Death" realized that if their mother had made a Pro‑Death choice when she was pregnant with them, then they would have never enjoyed the life they had/have. The same holds true for the doctors, nurses and mothers who go through the process of infanticide. Someone was gracious enough to give them the opportunity to live, SO WHY CAN'T THEY ALLOW THE SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UNBORN? Who has opposed abortion, the murder of the unborn, in America since our beginning as a few colonies? Who arrested the abortionist [Murderers] and either executed them or put them in prison? If you would only bother to study history a little you would find that the vast majority of the abortionists are Jews, of whom Jesus said:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets...and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets...Ye serpents, ye generation (Race) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:29‑33)
We have presented colonial governmental documents of 200 to 350 years ago, yet we need not go back that far, we need go back only two generations to find our government enforcing Christian Laws. What a change! Why do you think the anti‑Christs continually cry out the phrase, "separation of church and state" until its meaning is completely distorted. It has become a catch‑all phrase, by the enemies of Jesus Christ and America, in an attempt to eliminate all Christian influence upon anything involving state or civil affairs. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!" BECAUSE ALL LAWS ARE BASED UPON SOMEONE'S MORALITY! THEY ARE EITHER CHRISTIAN OR THEY ARE ANTI‑CHRISTIAN ‑ THERE ARE NO OTHERS!��
CONSTITUTIONS
Very few Christians know that several State Constitutions specifically mention;
��������� (1) Religion;
��������� (2) Christianity, and/or
��������� (3) The Bible
For example:
OHIO: Bill of Rights, Section 7:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being ����������� essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceful enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction."
The Ohio Constitution was adopted in 1802. Twenty‑three years later, in 1825, a tax levy was passed to set up and support a public school system. Therefore, the schools mentioned in the Ohio Constitution are private and church schools. Of the first 108 schools, 106 were founded by Christian Churches. As written, the Ohio Constitution required the State to protect and encourage private church schools.
MASSACHUSETTSES: Declaration of Rights, Article 2:
"And every denomination of Christians...shall be equal under the protection of the law." (The law was designed to protect Christians).
VERMONT: Declaration of Rights, Article 3:
"(our) opinion shall be regulated by the Word of God (The Bible)...Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed Word of God."
�� VIRGINIA: Section 18:
"...the rights hereby secured shall not be construed to...exclude or remove the Holy Bible from use in any public school of this state."
Our government consists of three separate branches: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. Each branch is "separate" meaning that each is independent from the other. Even if the words "separation of church and state" were in the Constitution, would it therefore follow it meant that one is "cut off and cast away" or would it mean that the Church is independent from the State? Of course it would mean the church was to be independent from the state!!!
In the Scriptures we never find an instant where a God‑ anointed priest or prophet took to himself the function of a civil administrator, nor do we find a case where a man anointed to serve in civil administration took unto himself the ministry of priest or prophet without coming under the judgment of God. (See 1 Samuel 13:5‑14 and 2 Chronicles 26:16‑20) The Supreme Court has declared that the United States of America is a Christian Nation. (Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457 (1892); McGowen vs. Maryland 366 U.S. 420 at 561 (1961))
In addition, a State Court is on record saying,
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations are placed on the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." (Runkel vs. Winemiller, 4 Harris & McHenry (MD) 429, 1 AD 411, 417)
On the other hand, the Constitution of Soviet Russia reads,
"...the state shall be separate from the church, and the church separate from the school,"
The ninth doctrine listed in the Humanist Manifesto II reads,
"The separation of church and state...are imperatives."
The following is a presentation of selected portions of the Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457 (1892):
"But beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...
�Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to touch very little upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the Constitutions of all the states, as follows, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'...And also provides in Article 7, a provision common to many Constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill...There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.
�These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are the organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. While because of the general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11S. & R. 394, 400, it was declared that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania;...not Christiani�ty with an established church and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with a liberty of conscience to all men.' And in the People vs. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said,
'The people of this state, in common with the people in this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as a rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only in a religious point of view extremely impious but even in respect to the obligations to society, a gross violation of decency and good order...The free, equal and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by the whole community, is an abuse of that right...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 on the religion of Mohammed or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and that the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of these imposters."
In Runkel vs. Winemiller, 4 Harris & McHenry (MD) 429, we find:
"...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...
�Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty. The principles of the Christian religion cannot be diffused, and its doctrines generally propagated, without places of public worship, and teachers and ministers, to explain the Scriptures to the people, and to enforce an observance of the precepts of religion by their preaching and living. And the pastors teachers and ministers, of every denomination of Christians, are equally entitled to the protection of the law and to the enjoyment of their religious and temporal rights."
In a speech delivered at Harvard College in 1905, Associate Justice of the United States David J. Brewer said, in part:
"We classify nations in various ways, as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo‑Saxon Nation, France a Gaelic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian Nations...
�This Republic is classified among the Christian Nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, 'there are many other matters, which might be noticed, and a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation.'
�But in what sense can it be called a Christian Nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the Contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
�Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation ‑‑ in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has a substantial basis ‑‑ one which justifies its use. Let us analyze a little and see what is the basis.
�Its use has had from the early settlements on our shores and still has an official foundation. It is only about three centuries since the beginnings of civilized life within the limits of these United States. And those beginnings were in a marked and marvelous degree identified with Christianity. The commission from Ferdinand and Isabella to Columbus recites that 'it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered.'
�The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1584, authorized him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony, provided that 'they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England.' The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I, in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: 'We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.' And language of similar import is found in subsequent charters of the same colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611.
�The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, in 1620, recites: 'Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and the honor of our king and country a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia.'
�The charter of New England, granted by James I, in 1620, after referring to a petition, declares: 'We, according to our princely inclination, favoring much their worthy disposition, in hope thereby to advance the enlargement of [the] Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty.'
The charter of Massachusetts Bay, granted in 1629 by Charles I, after several provisions, recites: 'Whereby our said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed as their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of the country to their knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our royal intention and the adventurers free profession, is the principal end of this plantation,' which declaration was substantially repeated in the charter of Massachusetts Bay granted by William and Mary in 1691.
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional govern�ment was instituted in 1638‑1639, provided: 'Forasmuch as it has pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of His divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, are now cohabitating and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands thereto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter enter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel, is now practices amongst us.'
�In the preamble of the Constitution of 1776 it was declared, 'the free fruition of such liberties and privileges of humanity, civility and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of churches and commonwealths; and the denial thereof, the disturbance, if not the ruin of both.'
In 1638 the first settlers in Rhode Island organized a local government by signing the following agreement: 'We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.
�And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel." (Exodus 24:3‑4);
"Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren: return every man to his house: for this thing is done of me. And they obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned from going against Jeroboam." (2 Chronicels 11:3‑4);
"And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord's people; between the king also and the people." (2 Kings 11:17)
The charter granted to Rhode Island, in 1663, naming the petitioners, speaks of them as 'pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minds, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves and one another in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor, ignorant Indian natives, in these parts of America, to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship.'
The charter of Carolina, granted in 1663 by Charles II, recites that the petitioners, 'being excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith.'
In the preface of the frame of government prepared in 1682 by William Penn, for Pennsylvania, it is said: 'They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government than correction, which is the coarsest part of it; daily experience tells us that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, make up much of the greatest part of government; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men, on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed second Adam, the Lord from heaven.'
�And with the laws prepared to go with the frame of government, it was further provided 'that according to the good example of the primitive Christians, and the ease of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's Day, people shall abstain from their common daily labor that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understandings.' In the charter of privileges granted, in 1701, by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania� and territories thereunto belonging (such territories afterwards constituting the State of Delaware), it is recited: 'Because no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their consciences as to their religious profession and worship; and Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith and worship, who only doth enlighten the minds and persuade and convince the understandings of the people, I do hereby grant and declare.'
�The Constitution of Vermont, of 1777, granting the free exercise of religious worship, added, 'Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, and keep up and support some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.' And this was repeated in the Constitution of 1786.
�In the Constitution of South Carolina, of 1778, it was declared that 'the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed and is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this State.' And further, that no agreement or union of en upon pretense of religion should be entitled to become incorporated and regarded as a church of the established religion of the State, without agreeing and subscribing to a book of five articles, the third and fourth of which were 'that the Christian religion is the true religion; that the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.'
�Passing beyond these declarations which are found in the organic instruments of the colonies, the following are well known historical facts: Lord Baltimore secured the charter for a Maryland colony in order that he and his associates might continue their Catholic worship free from Protestant persecution. Roger Williams, exiled from Massachusetts because of his religious views, established an independent colony in Rhode Island.
�The Huguenots, driven from France by the Edict of Nantes, sought in the more southern colonies a place where they could live in the enjoyment of their Huguenot faith. It is not exaggeration to say that Christianity in some of its creeds was the principal cause of the settlement of many of the colonies, and cooperated with business hopes and purposes in the settlement of the others. Beginning in this way and under these influences it is not strange that the colonial life had an emphatic Christian tone. From the very first efforts were made, largely it must be conceded by Catholics, to bring the Indians under the influence of Christianity.
�Who can read without emotion the story of Marquette, and others like him, enduring all perils and dangers and toiling through the forests of the west in their efforts to tell the story of Jesus to the savages of North America? Within less than one hundred years from the landing at Jamestown three colleges were established in the colonies; Harvard in Massachusetts, William and Mary in Virginia and Yale in Connecticut. The first seal used by Harvard College had as a motto, 'In Christi Gloriam,' and the charter granted by Massachusetts Bay contained this recital: 'Whereas, through the good hand of God many well devoted persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up to give and bestow sundry gifts ...that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and Godliness.'
�The charter of William and Mary, reciting that the proposal was 'to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the western Indians, to the glory of Almighty god' made the grant 'for propagating the pure gospel of Christ, our only Mediator, to the praise and honor of Almighty God.'
�The charter of Yale declared as its purpose to fit 'young men for public employment both in church and civil state,' and it provided that the trustees should be Congregational ministers living in the colony. In some of the colonies, particularly in New England, the support of the church was a matter of public charge, even as the common schools are today. Thus the Constitution of Massachusetts, of 1780, Part I, Article 3, provided that 'the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.' Article 6 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of New Hampshire, of 1784, repeated in the Constitution of 1792, empowered 'the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provision at their own expense for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.'
�In the fundamental Constitutions of 1769, prepared for the Carolinas, by the celebrated John Locke, Article 96 reads: 'As the country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England, which being the only true and orthodox and the national religion of all the king's dominations, is so also of Carolina, and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of parliament.'
�In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, it was provided that 'the legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion.' In several colonies and states a profession of the Christian faith was made an indispensable condition to holding office. In the frame of government for Pennsylvania, prepared by William Penn, in 1683, it was provided that 'all treasurers, judges...and other offi�cers...and all members elected to serve in provincial council and general assembly, and all that have right to elect such members, shall be such as profess faith in Jesus Christ.' And in the charter of privileges for that colony, given in 1701 by William Penn and approved by the colonial assembly it was provided 'that all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall capable...to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively.'
�In Delaware, by the Constitution of 1776, every officeholder was required to make and subscribe the following declaration: 'I, A.B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.'
�New Hampshire, in the Constitutions of 1784 and 1792, required that senators and representatives should be of the 'Protestant religion,' and this provision remained in force until 1877. The fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas declared: 'No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation within it that doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshiped.'
�The Constitution of North Carolina, of 1776, provided: 'That no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.' And this remained in force until 1835, when it was amended by changing the word 'Protestant' to 'Christian,' and as so amended remained in force until the Constitution of 1868. And in that Constitution among the persons disqualified for office were 'all persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God.'
�New Jersey, by the Constitution of 1776, declared 'that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of ether branch of the legislature.' The Constitution of South Carolina, of 1776, provided that no person should be eligible to the Senate or House of Representatives 'unless he be of the Protestant religion.'
�Massachusetts, in its Constitution of 1780, required from governor, lieutenant‑governor, counselor, senator and representative before proceeding to execute the duties of his place or office a declaration that 'I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.'
�By the fundamental orders of Connecticut the governor was directed to take an oath to 'further the execution of justice according to the rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.'
�The Vermont Constitution of 1777 required of every member of the house of Representatives that he takes this oath: 'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.' A similar requirement was provided by the Constitution of 1786.
�In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, every person appointed to any office of profit or trust was not only to take an official oath of allegiance to the State, but also to 'subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.' In the same State, in the Constitution of 1851, it was declared that no other test or qualification for admission to any office of trust or profit shall be required than the official oath 'and a declaration of belief in the Christian religion; and if the party shall profess to be a Jew the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.' As late as 1864 the same State in its Constitution had a similar provision, the change being one merely of phraseology, the provision reading, 'a declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.'
�Mississippi, by the Constitution of 1817, provided that 'no person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.'
�Another significant matter is the recognition of Sunday. That day is the Christian Sabbath, a day peculiar to that faith, and known to no other. It would be impossible within the limits of a lecture to point out all the ways in which that day is recognized. The following illustrations must suffice: By the United States Constitution the President is required to approved all bills passed by Congress. If he disapproves he returns it with his veto. And then specifically it is provided that if not returned by him within ten days, 'Sundays excepted,' Louisiana is one of the nine States in whose present [1905] Constitution the expression, 'Sundays excepted,' is not found. Four earlier Constitutions of that State (those of 1812, 1845, 1852 and 1864) contained [it], while the three latter ones, 1868, 1879 and 1881 omit those words.
�In State ex rel. vs. Secretary of State, a case arising under the last Constitu�tion, decided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana (52 La. An. 936), the question was presented as to the effect of a governor's veto which was returned within time if a Sunday intervening between the day of presentation of the bill and the return of the veto was excluded, and too late if it was included; the burden of the contention on the one side being that the change in the phraseology of the later Constitutions in omitting the words 'Sundays excepted' indicated a change in the meaning of the constitutional provision in respect to the time of a veto. The court unanimously held that the Sunday was to be excluded.
�In the course of its opinion it said (p. 944): 'In law Sundays are generally excluded as days upon which the performance of any act demanded by the law is not required. They are held to be dies non juridici. And in the Christian world Sunday is regarded as the 'Lord's Day,' and a holiday ‑‑ a day of cessation from labor. By statute, enacted as far back as 1838, this day is made in Louisiana one of 'public rest.' Rev. Stat., Sec. 522; Code of Practice, 207, 763. This is the policy of the State of long standing and the framers of the Constitution are to be considered as intending to conform to the same.' By express command of Congress studies are not pursued at the military or naval academies, and distilleries are prohibited from operation on Sundays, while chaplains are required to hold religious services once at least on that day.
�By the English statute of 29 Charles II no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person was permitted to do or exercise any worldly labor, business or work of ordinary calling upon the Lord's Day, or any part thereof, works of necessity or charity only excepted. That statute, with some variations, has been adopted by most if not all the States of the Union. In Massachusetts it was held that one injured while traveling in the cars on Sunday, except in case of necessity or charity, was guilty of contributory negligence and could recover nothing from the railroad company for the injury he sustained. And this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. A statute of the State of Georgia, making the running of freight trains on Sunday a misdemeanor, was also upheld by that court.
�By decisions in many States a contract made on Sunday is invalid and cannot be enforced. By the general course of decision no judicial proceedings can be held on Sunday. All legislative bodies, whether municipal, state or national, abstain from work on that day. Indeed, the vast volume of official action, legislative and judicial, recognizes Sunday as a day separate and apart from the others, a day devoted not to the ordinary pursuits of life. It is true in many of the decisions of this separation of the day is said to be authorized by the police power of the State and exercised for purposes of health. At the same time, through a large majority of them, there runs the thought of its being a religious day, consecrated by the Commandment, 'Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.'
�While the word 'God' is not infrequently used both in the singular and plural to denote any supreme being or beings, yet when used alone and in the singular number it generally refers to that Supreme Being spoken of in the Old and New Testaments and worshiped by the Christian. In that sense the word is used in constitution, statute and instrument.
�In many State Constitutions we find in the preamble a declaration like this: 'Grateful to Almighty God.' In whom he who denied the being of God was disqualified from holding office. It is again and again declared in constitution and statute that official oaths shall close with an appeal, 'So help me, God.' When, upon inauguration, the President‑elect each four years consecrates himself to the great responsibilities of Chief Executive of the republic, his vow of consecration in the presence of the vast throng filling the Capitol grounds will end with the solemn words, 'So help me, God.' In all our courts witnesses in like manner vouch for the truthfulness of their testimony. The common commencement of wills is 'In the name of God, Amen.' Every foreigner attests his renunciation of allegiance to his former sovereign and his acceptance of citizenship in this republic by an appeal to God. These various declarations in charters, constitutions and statutes indicate the general thought and purpose.
�If it be said that similar declarations are not found in all the charters or in all the constitutions, it will be borne in mind that the omission oftentimes was because they were deemed unnecessary, as shown by the quotation just made from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, as well as those hereafter taken from the opinions of other courts. And further, it is of still more significance that there are no contrary declarations. In no charter or constitution is there anything to even suggest that any other than the Christian is the religion of his country. In none of them is Mohammed or Confucius or Buddha in any manner noticed. In none of them is Judaism recognized other than by way of toleration of its special creed.
�While the separation of church and state is often affirmed, there is nowhere a repudiation of Christianity as one of the institutions as well as benedictions of society. In short, there is no charter or constitution that is either infidel, agnostic or anti‑Christian. Wherever there is a declaration in favor of any religion it is of the Christian. In view of the multitude of expressions in its favor, the avowed separation between church and states is a most satisfactory testimonial that it is the religion of this country, for a peculiar thought of Christianity is of a personal relation between man and his Maker, uncontrolled by and independent of human government. Notice also the matter of chaplains.
�These are appointed for the army and navy, named as officials of legislative assemblies, and universally they belong to one or other of the Christian denominations. [You see no so‑called Jewish chaplains were allowed in he military of the United States until after 1905 ‑ thus the cries of the ministers of Baal from the pulpits of America about America being a Judeo‑Christian nation is nothing more than a lie fostered upon the American people by the antichrist Jews]. Their whole range of service, whether in prayer or preaching, is an official recognition of Christianity. If it be not so, why do we have chaplains?
�If we consult the decisions of the courts, although the formal question has seldom been presented because of a general recognition of its truth, yet in The People vs. Ruggles, 8 John, 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commenta�tor on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: '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.' And in the famous case of Vidal vs. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, the Supreme Court of the United States, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: 'It is also said, and truly that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'
�The New York Supreme Court, in Lindenmuller vs. The People, 33 Barbour, 561 held that: 'Christianity is not the legal religion of the State, as established by law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it is not; but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. This fact is everywhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, as well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.'
�The South Carolina Supreme Court, in State vs. Chandler, 2 Harrington, 555, citing many cases, said: 'It appears to have been long perfectly settled by the common law that blasphemy against the Deity in general, or a malicious and wanton attack against the Christian religion individually, for the purpose of exposing its doctrines to contempt and ridicule, is indictable and punishable as a temporal offense.' And again, in City Council vs. Benjamin, 2 Strobhart, 521: 'On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord ‑‑ its decent observance in a Christian community is that which ought to be expected. it is not perhaps necessary for the purposes of this case to rule and hold that the Christian religion is part of the common law of South Carolina. Still it may be useful to show that it lies at the foundation of even the article of the Constitution under consideration, and that upon it rest many of the principles and usages, constantly acknowledged and enforced, in the courts of justice.'
�The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant and Rawle, 400, made this declaration.: 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a great part of the common law of Pennsylvania; Christianity, without the spiritual artillery of European countries; of this Christianity was one of the considerations of the royal charter, and the very basis of its great founder, William Penn; not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.'
�And subsequently, in Johnson vs. The Commonwealth, 10 Harris, III. 'It is not our business to discuss the obligations of Sunday any further than they enter into and are recognized by the law of the land. The common law adopted it, along with Christianity, of which it is one of the bulwarks.'
�In Arkansas, Shover vs. The State, 10 English, 263, the Supreme Court said: 'Sunday or the Sabbath is properly and emphatically called the Lord's Day, and is one amongst the first and most sacred institutions of the Christian religion. This system of religion is recognized as constituting a part and parcel of the common law, and as such all of the institutions growing out of it, or, in any way, connected with it, in case they shall not be found to interfere with the rights of conscience, are entitled to the most profound respect, and can rightfully claim the protection of the law‑making power of the State.'
�The Supreme Court of Maryland, in Judefind vs. The State, 78 Maryland, 514, declared: 'The Sabbath is emphatically the day of rest, and the day of rest here is the Lord's Day or Christian's Sunday. Ours is a Christian community, and a day set apart as the day of rest is the day consecrated by the resurrection of our Saviour, and embraces the twenty‑four hours next ensuing the midnight of Sunday...But it would scarcely be asked of a court, in what professes to be a Christian land, to declare a law unconstitutional because it requires rest from bodily labor on Sunday (except works of necessity and charity) and thereby promotes the cause of Christianity.'
�If now we pass from the domain of official action and recognition to that of individual acceptance we enter a field of boundless extent, and I can only point out a few of the prominent facts: Notice our educational institutions. I have already called your attention to the provisions of the charters of the first three colleges. Think of the vast number of academies, colleges and universities scattered through the land. Some of them, it is true, are under secular control, but there is yet to be established in this country one of those institutions founded on the religions of Confucius, Buddha or Mohammed, while an over-whelming majority are under the special direction and control of Christian teachers. Notice also the avowed and pronounced Christian forces of the country, and here I must refer to the census of 1890, for the statistics of the census of 1900 in these matters have not been compiled: The population was 62,622,000.
�There were 165,000 Christian church organizations, owning 142,000 buildings, in which were sittings for 40,625,000 people. The communicants in these churches numbered 20,476,000, and the value of the church property amounted to $669,876,000. In other words, about one‑third of the entire population were directly connected with Christian organizations. Nearly two‑thirds would find seats in our churches. If to the members we add the children and others in their families more or less connected with them, it is obvious that a large majority were attached to the various church organizations. I am aware that the relationship between many members and their churches is formal, and that church relations do not constitute active and paramount forces in their lives, and yet it is clear that there is an identification of the great mass of American citizens with the Christian church.
�It is undoubtedly true that there is no little complain of the falling off in church attendance, and of a lukewarmness on the part of many, and on the other hand there is a diversion of religious force along the lines of the Young Men's Christian Association, the Christian Endeavor Society and the Epworth League.
�All these, of course, are matters to be noticed, but they do not avoid the fact of a formal adhesion of the great majority of our people to the Christian faith; and while creeds and dogmas and denominations are in a certain sense losing their power, and certainly their antagonisms, yet as a vital force in the land, Christiani�ty is still the mighty factor. Connection with the denominations are large missionary bodies constantly busy in extending [the] Christian faith through this nation and through the world. No other religious organization has anything of a foothold or is engaged in active work unless it be upon so small a scale as scarcely to be noticed in the great volume of American life.
�Again, the Bible is the Christian's book. No other book has so wide a circulation, or is so universally found in the households of the land. During their century of existence the English and American Bible Societies have published and circulated two hundred and fifty million copies, and this represents but a fraction of its circulation. And then think of the multitude of volumes published in exposition, explanation and illustration of that book, or some portion of it. You will have noticed that I have presented no doubtful facts. Nothing has been stated which is debatable. The quotations from charters are in the archives of the several States; the laws are on the statute books; judicial opinions are taken from the census publications. In short, no evidence has been presented which is open to question.
�I could easily enter upon another line of examination. I could point out the general trend of public opinion, the disclosures of purposes and beliefs to be found in letters, papers, books and unofficial declarations.
�I could show how largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ: how constantly the Bible is appealed to as the guide of life and the authority in questions of morals; how the Christian doctrines are accepted as the great comfort in times of sorrow and affliction, and fill with the light of hope the services of the dead. On every hilltop towers the steeple of some Christian church, while from the marble witnesses in God's acre comes the universal but silent testimony to the common faith in the Christian doctrine of the resurrection and the life hereafter.
�But I must not weary you. I could go on indefinitely, point out further illustrations both official and non‑official, public and private; such as the annual Thanksgiving proclamations, with their following days of worship and feasting; announcements of days of fasting and prayer; the universal celebration of Christmas; the gathering of millions of our children in Sunday Schools, and the countless volumes of Christian literature, both prose and poetry.
�But I have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a might factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian Nation, and we can all rejoice as truthfully we repeat the words of Leonard Bacon:
"'O God, beneath thy guiding hand
Our exiled fathers crossed the sea,
And when they trod the wintry strand,
With prayer and psalm they worshiped Thee.
Thou hear�dst, well pleased, the song, the prayer
Thy blessing came; and still its power
Shall onward through all ages bear
The memory of that holy hour.
Laws, freedom, truth, and faith in God
Came with those exiles o'er the waves,
And where their pilgrim feet have trod,
The God they trusted guards their graves.
And here Thy name, O God of love,
Their children's children shall adore,
Till these eternal hills remove,
And spring adorns the earth no more.'"
Justice Brewer, the next day speaking of his speech the night before stated:
"I considered last night the proposition that the Unites States of America is a Christian nation. I pointed out that Christianity was a primary cause of the first settlement on our shores; that the organic instruments, charters and constitutions of the colonies were filled with abundant recognitions of it as a controlling factor in the life of the people; that in one at least of them it was in terms declared the established religion, while in several the furthering of Christianity was stated to be one of the purposes of the government; in many faith in it was a condition of holding office; in some, authority was given to the legislature to make its support a public charge; in nearly all the constitutions there has been an express recognition of the sanctity of the Christian Sunday; the God of the Bible is appealed to again and again.
�Sunday laws have been enacted and enforced in most of the colonies and States. About one‑third of the population are avowedly Christian and communicants in some Christian organization; there are sitting accommodations in the churches for nearly two‑thirds; educational institutions are largely under the control of Christian denominations, and even in those which, in obedience to the rule of separation between church and state, are secular in their organization, the principles of Christianity are uniformly recognized. By these and other evidences I claim to have shown that the calling of this Republic a Christian Nation is not a mere pretence but a recognition of an historical, legal and social truth. I came this evening to consider the consequences of this fact and the duties it imposes upon all our citizens.
�And first let it be noticed that there is no incompatibility between Christianity and Patriotism. The declaration of the Master, 'Render therefore unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's,' is not a declaration of antagonism between the two, but an affirmation of duty to each. Indeed, devotion to one generally goes hand in hand with loyalty to the other...
�But we need not go elsewhere. In our own land, from the very first, Christianity and patriotism have worked together. When the Pilgrim Fathers touched New England's shores their first service was one of thanksgiving and praise to that Infinite One who had, as they believed, guided them to their new home. In the long struggles of the early colonists with their Indian foes, the building on the hill was both church and fort. They fell on their knees and then on the aborigines, was the old satire, to which now is added, they fall on the Chinese. In the convention that framed the Constitution, when doubt and uncertainty hovered over the result, at Franklin's instance prayer was offered for the success of their efforts.
�In the dark days at Valley Forge the great leader sought strength and inspiration in prayer. When the nation stood aghast at the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (By John Wilks Booth, a Jew who, as most of those of his religious belief, spurned the nation and people who had given him and his people sanctuary), the clarion voice of Garfield rang out above the darkness and the tumult, 'God reigns, and the government at Washington still lives.'
�And so I might go on with illustration after illustration showing how the faith of the Christian has stood in times of trial and trouble as the rock [Jesus Christ] upon which the nation has rested. Again, Christianity is entitled to the tribute of respect. I do not of course mean that all individuals, nominally Christian, deserve trust, confidence, or even respect, for the contrary is too often the case. Too often men hold religion as they do property, in their wives' names. Nor is Christianity beyond the reach of criticism and opposition. It is not lifted up as something too sacred to be spoken of save in terms and tones of reverence. This an iconoclastic and scientific age. We are destroying many beliefs and traditions. William Tell is a myth.
�The long hairs of Pocahontas never dropped in protecting folds over the body of John Smith. The Arabs never destroyed the great library at Alexandria, though if some wandering Arabs would destroy all the law books in the land they would bless the courts and help the cause of justice. We challenge the truthfulness of every assertion of fact, every demand upon our faith and confidence; and Christianity must stand like all other institutions, to be challenged, criticized, weighed and its merits and demerits determined. The time has passed in the history of the world when anything is too sacred to be touched, when anything is beyond the reach of the inquiring and scientific spear. But while conceding all this I insist that Christianity has been so wrought into the history of this republic, so identified with its growth and prosperity, has been and is so dear to the hearts of the great body of our citizens, that it ought not to be spoken of contemptuous�ly or treated with ridicule. Religion of any form is a sacred matter.
�It involves the relation of the individual to some Being believed to be infinitely supreme. It involves not merely character and life here, but destiny hereafter, and as such is not to be spoken of lightly or flippantly. And we who are citizens of this republic ‑‑ recognizing the identification of Christianity with its life, the general belief that Christianity is the best of all religions, that it passed into the lives of our father and is taken into the lives of our brethren as something of sacred power ‑‑ ought, even if not agreeing with all that is claimed for it, to at least accord to respect.
�I once listened to a conversation which illustrates my thought. It was between two young men returning after the close of a summer's vacation to the college at which both were students. The principal talker was, as I discovered in the course of the afternoon, an only son. On his upper lip was the first dark shadow of a coming mustache. He possessed that peculiar wisdom which belongs in this world to only the college sophomore. He was expressing to his companion his views on the Bible and religion. [And] said he knew too much to believe in either; admitted that his mother believed in both and read her Bible every day; said that that might do for women and children, but not for any scientific knowledge.
�You would have thought that Darwin and Huxle and Lord Kelvin had studied at his feet and that he was the Gamaliel of the present day. It is impossible to reproduce in language the self‑sufficient sneering tone in which he spoke of the Bible, classing it with nursery rhymes, the story of Jack and the Beanstalk and the like, and the complacement pity with which he referred to those who were foolish enough to regard it as a sacred book. (It is very obvious that this young man was either a Jew or he had been talking to one. Because the Jewish Talmud teaches that The Bible is considered to be a collection of simple tales fit only for fools, women and children ‑‑ Book of Nedarim) It is to be hoped that the budding sophomore lived long enough to learn that no gentleman speaks sneeringly of that which has been the life‑long faith and comfort of his mother.
AMERICAN FLAG
�From the standpoint of citizenship the treatment of Christianity may be regarded as in some respects similar to that which is accorded and is due to the national flag. Who looks upon that as a mere piece of cloth costing but a trifle, something to be derided or trampled upon at will? A particular banner may not have cost much. It may be cheap to him who sees only the material and work which have passed into it, but to every patriot it is the symbol of patriotism. Its history is a record of glory. A century ago the Barbary pirates, who had defied the flags of Europe, saw it waving over Decatur's vessels and bowed in submission.
�Commodore Perry sailed beneath it into the unknown harbors of Japan, opened that nation to the nineteenth century, and today her civilization and power command universal respect and admiration [How we have fallen as a nation and a people in just 85 years]. The oppressed Cuban appealed to it for deliver�ance, and in response thereto Manila and Santiago de Cuba introduced a new sister into the family of nations:
'Wherever man has dared to go,
His brightness on unbroken snow,
'Mid tropic heat or polar snow,
Where icy pillars tower to heaven
On sandy plain or lofty crag,
Pale sentinels to nature given,
Has waved our country's starry flag.
To watch the only spot she can
In that far North where ceaseless cold
Withhold from grasping hand of man,
Has built its alabaster hold,
There Kane unfurled this banner bright,
And where the sun disdains to show
Resplendent with auroral light.'
Today it waves at the masthead of American vessels in every water of the globe, and commands the world's respect [That was in 1905, when America still held to God's Laws, today the American flag is spat upon and despised in every nation in the world. Thanks to the antichrists in our midst]! An insult to it every citizen feels is an insult to himself, and all insist that it shall be accorded due respect. We remember how, in the early days of our great civil struggle, the loyal heart was stirred with the thrilling words of Secretary Dix, 'IF ANY MAN ATTEMPTS TO HAUL DOWN THE AMERICAN FLAG, SHOOT HIM ON THE SPOT.' We honor Stonewall Jackson, who, seeing Barbara Frietchie waving this banner from the window of her home in Frederick, and the threatening guns of his soldiers, called out:
'Who touches a hair of yon gray head
Dies like a dog. March on;' he said.'
�We rejoice that now it floats in peace and triumph over all our fair land. We love to watch its fold swing out to the breeze on every patriotic day, to see it decorate the walls where gather our great conventions. We glory in every tribute that is paid to it in any part of the globe. It tells the story of conflicts, of defeats and victories. It has waved over many a field of battle, the blood of our noblest and best has been shed in its defense. It is eloquent of all the sufferings and trials of days gone by, of all the great achievements of the American people, and as we swing it to the breeze we do so with undoubting faith that it will wave over grander things in the future of this Republic.
�Christianity has entered into and become part of the life of this Republic; it came with its beginnings and prompted them; has been identified with its toils and trials, shared in its victories, cheered in the hour of darkness and gloom, and stand today prophetic of untold blessings in the future. And shall it be said that it alone of all our benedictions has forfeited a claim to receive from every American citizen the tribute of respect?
�Respect for Christianity implies respectful treatment of its institutions and ordinances. This does not require that every one must conform his life to those institutions and ordinances. That is something which each one has a right to settle for himself. Take, for instance, the matter of church services. No one is in duty bound as a citizen to attend a particular church service, or indeed any church service. The freedom of conscience, the liberty of the individual, gives to every individual the right to attend or stay away. At the same time there is an obligation not to unnecessarily interfere with or disturb those services. This is something more than the duty which rests upon one attending those services to avoid the ungentlemanly and unseemly act of disturbing the exercises.
�That is only a part of the common courtesy of all going into a gathering assembled for any lawful purpose. They who call the meeting and who are engaged in service of any legitimate character have a right to be free from annoyance and interference.
�But beyond that the citizen who does not attend, does not even share in the belief of those who do, ought ever to bear in mind the noble part Christianity has taken in the history of the republic, the great share it has had in her wonderful development and its contribution to her present glory, and by reason thereof take pains to secure to those who do believe in it and do attend its services freedom from all disturbance of their peaceful gathering. The American Christian is entitled to his quiet hour.
THE LORD'S DAY
�Take another illustration, ‑‑ Sunday. Its separation from the other days as a day of rest is enforced by the legislation of nearly all if not all the States of the Union. Beyond that it is to the Christian a sacred day. It does not follow that it is the duty of every individual to observe the Sabbath as Christians do. Indeed, there is no unanimity of view among the latter as to the manner in which it should be observed. We have gone far away from the Puritan Sabbath and the austere, severe observance of it which prevailed in the early days of [the] New England colonies, and which made the day a terror to children as well as burdensome to adults. I believe it is conceded that notwithstanding the fabled blue laws of New England, a man may without impropriety kiss his wife on Sunday and possibly if he have a chance some other sweet‑ faced woman.
�That old‑time terror has been superseded by gentler and kindlier modes of observance, which tend to make the day welcome to all, both young and old, one in which is not merely rest from the ordinary toils of the week, but one in which the companionship of friends the sweet influences of nature, and lessons from the higher forms of music and other arts are recognized as among its benedictions. While the latter modes, though very likely more helpful, more really Christian, are a great departure from the former, yet it still remains true that it is a day consecrated of old, a day separated by law and religion as well as by the custom of the church for ages, and ought not to be turned into a day of public frivolity and gayety. While it may be true that all are not under obligations to conform to the higher and better uses of the day, yet at least they owe that respect to Christianity to pursue their frivolities and gaieties in such a way as not to offend those who believe in its sacredness. I recognize the fact that it is not always easy t draw the line and that freedom implies not merely the freedom of those who would keep the day sacred, but also the freedom of those who do not so regard it.
�Again it deserve the attention and study of every citizen. You are all patriots, you love your country, are proud of its past and mean to so live and act that you can help it to the best possible future. Now, as I have pointed out, Christianity was a principal cause of the settlements on these western shores. It has been identified with the growth and development of those settlements into the United States of America, has so largely shaped and molded it that today of all the nations in the world it is most justly called a Christian nation. In order to determine what we ought to do for the future of the republic we must review its history, inquire into the causes which have made its growth and influenced its life, ascertained which have been the most controlling and which have helped on the better side of its development, and why they have been so influential. I have shown that Christianity has been a great factor, and the student of our history will find that it has been a helpful and uplifting factor. Making full allowance for all the imperfections and mistakes which have attended it, as they attend all human institution, I am sure that the student will be convinced that its general influence upon our national life has been for the better.
�It has always stood for purity of the home, and who doubts that our homes have been the centers of the holiest living. It is Judaism, Mormonism, Mohamme�danism and heathenism and not Christianity which have proclaimed polygamy and debased woman from the sacred place of wife to the lower level of concubine. It is not Christianity which has sustained the social evil. All through our history, colonial and national, the hope and ambition of every young man and woman have been for a home of their own, into which one husband and one wife shall enter, 'that they twain shall be one flesh.'
�One of the sad features of city life today is the crowding into apartments, where the janitor is master of the house and the independence of the home life is only partially secured. The barracks around our great manufacturing establishments are freighted with equally sad significance. While admitting the temporary departure we rejoice that this has been pre‑eminently a land of homes, whether in the city, or village, or country. And the power which has ever stood in the land for the purity of home life has been a crown of glory to the republic.
�It has stood for business honesty and integrity. Its proclamation has been the golden rule. Do unto others as you would they should do unto you, is a summons to honesty and fair dealing in all business as well as other relations in life. The Master never suggested that ability to keep outside the penitentiary was a sufficient test of honesty.
�It has stood for liberty and the rights of man. In the great revolutionary struggle the trusted counselors of the people were the preachers. While they may not be known in history as the leaders, were not the lawyers to draft the statutes and the constitution, nor the military heroes to command the armies, yet the local centers of influence were the Christian churches, and the Christian preachers were the men who kept the mass of the people loyal to the leadership of Washington and his associates. And in the later struggle for human liberty Christianity was always on the advance line. Those of us who remember the ante‑Bellum days recalled the bitter flings that were made against preachers in politics. That was significant of the recognized truth that they were leading the great mass of the loyal people on in that most wonderful civil war of all the ages. That struggle, as every one knows commenced on the plains of Kansas, and the New England emigrant crossed those plains, singing the song of Whittier:
'We go to plant our common schools
Upbearing like the ark of old,
On distant prairie swells,
The Bible in our van,
And give the Sabbaths of the wild
We go to test the truth of God
The music of her bells.
Against the fraud of man.'
�And all during the terrible days of the great war, from every Union camp and company rolled up the majestic music of the battle hymn of the republic:
'In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.'
EDUCATION
�It has stood for education. I have already called your attention to this matter in proof of the Christian character of the nation. It may be added that outside of the institutions with direct State support nearly every academy, college and university was founded by and is under the control of some one of the several Christian denominations. Indeed, a frequent criticism of many is that they are too much under such control. Certain is it that they would never have come into being but for the denominations back of them. Up to a recent date the rule was that the presidents and an exceedingly large majority of the faculty of all these institutions be ministers.
�It was a national surprise when first a layman was elected a college president. In the common schools the Bible has been as much a text‑book as the New England primer. It is only within very late years that any objection has been raised to its daily use, and that objection has sprung as much from differences between the Catholic and Protestant denominations concerning the version to be used as from opposition to the book itself. It has stood for the great charities and benevolences of the land. What single organization has done more for the orphan than the Christian Church? What one through hospital and asylum, more for the sick and afflicted? If you were to select a single face and form as the typical expression of the great thought of charity and kindness, whose would you select other than the face and form of a sister of Charity? In times when epidemics rage, when death seems to haunt every city home, who are the devoted ones to risk their lives in caring for the sick and paying the last offices to the dead?
�Surely as the vision of this rises in your mind you see the presence and form of those whose faith is in the Man of Galilee.
It has stood for peace. I need not content myself by referring to that Christian denomination, one of whose distinguishing tenets is unqualified opposition to all wars. I can with safety point to the great body of those who in days gone by have been the champions of the cause of peace; to the memorials which have been presented to the two Houses of Congress in favor of arbitration; to those who are at the head of the various peace societies, and who are always found upon the platforms at their gatherings, and whose voices are most constant and potent in its behalf. Indeed, strike from the history of this country all that the Christian Church has done in the interest and to further the cause of peace and there is not as much life left as was found in the barren fig tree.
�It has stood for temperance. Not that it has stood alone, but it has been a leader. The foremost advocates of the cause have been pronounced Christians. Frances Willard was president of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, not of the Woman's Mohammedan Temperance Union, and the White Ribboners are not disciples of Confucius or Buddha. The churches have been the palaces of the great gatherings of the friends of temperance. Indeed, when you survey the efforts made to further that cause you will find that running through them all Christianity has been distinctively present.
�In short, it has sought to write into the history of this nation the glowing words of the apostle: 'Love, joy, peace, long‑suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law.'
�It has stood for all these things because they represent its thought and purpose. So he who studies the history of the country, finding this to be the lesson of its influence upon our history, can but be led to the conclusion not merely that it has been a potent factor in the life of the nation, but also that it has been a healthful and helpful factor. When one who loves his country realizes this fact, does there not open before him a clear vision of his duty to further its influence.
�If in the past it has done so much and so well for the country is there any reason to doubt that strengthened and extended it will continue the same healthful and helpful influence? It has been often said that Christian Nations are either civilized nations, and as often that the most thoroughly Christian are the most highly civilized. Is this a mere coincidence? Study well the history of Christianity in its relation to the nation and it will be found that it is something more than a mere coincidence, that there is between the two relation of cause and effect, and that the more thoroughly the principles of Christianity reach into and influence the life of the nation the more certainly will that nation advance in civilization.
�It is the duty of every patriot, finding that it has been such a factor in our life, to inquire whether it does stand to its civilization in the relation of cause and effect, and it would be in the highest degree unphilosophical to assume that there has been only a coincidence, and therefore that its presence in the nation is a matter of indifference. If found that it has been both a potent and helpful factor in the development of our civilization, then it is a patriot's duty to uphold it and extend its influence. This is in line with the general obligation which rests upon all to help everything which tends to the bettering of the life of the republic..."
The Christian concept derived directly from the Hebrew Holy Writ was the next ingredient added to the monotheistic governing process and this is where the Theocratic Constitutional Republic form of limited government of the people, by the people, and for the people originated from., Creating the United States of America.
The original charters, compacts, contracts, and constitutions, all had their origin in the Bible. All the laws, rules, and regulations concerning civil, religious, and hygiene were taken from the Bible and patterned after the Christian Faith. All of the Common Law of the United States of America came directly out of the Old Testament books of the Holy Bible, namely, the original source of our Common Law was the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Christian system of government as established in the United States of America had its origin predominantly as follows:
MAGNA CHARTA OF 1215 A.D.
John, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters...and his faithful subjects, greeting. Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our Realm...have, in the first place, granted to God, and by this our present Charter confirmed, for us and our heirs for ever:
"That the Church of England shall be free, and have her whole rights, and her liber�ties...We also have granted to all the freemen of our kingdom for us and our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties to be hand and holden by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever...No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by the general council of our kingdom; except for ransoming our person, making our eldest son a knight, and once for marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall be paid no more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be concerning the aids of the City of London.
�And the City of London shall have its ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water: furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities and boroughs, and towns and ports, shall have all their liberties and free customs.
�And for holding the general council of the kingdom concerning the assessment of aids, except in the three cases aforesaid, and for the assessing of scutages we shall cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons of the realm, singly by our letters. And furthermore, we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold us in chief, for a certain day. That is to say, forty days before their meeting at least, and to a certain place; and in all letters of such summons we will declare the cause of such summons. And summons being thus made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the advice of such as shall be present, although all that were summoned came not...
�A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but only according to the degree of the offence; and for a great crime according to the heinousness of it, saving to him his contentment; and after the same manner a merchant, saving to him his merchandise. And a villain shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him his wainage, if he falls under our mercy; and none of the aforesaid americaments shall be assessed but by the oath of honest men in the neighbor�hood.
�Earls and barons shall not be amerced but by their peers, after the degree of the offence...
�No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other chattels of any man unless he presently give him money for it, or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller.
�No constable shall distrain any knight to give money for castle-guard, if he himself will do it in his person, or by another able man, in case he cannot do it through any reasonable cause...No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, without the assent of the said freeman.
�Neither shall we nor our bailiffs take any man's timber for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of the owner of the timber...
�If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt falls into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
�And if any one die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
�Nothing from henceforth shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limb, but it shall be grated freely, and not denied...No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, nor will we send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
�We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man, either justice or right...
�If any one has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without the lawful judgment of his peers, of his lands, castles, liberties, or right, we will forthwith restore them to him; and if any dispute arise upon his head, let the matter be decided by the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned, for the preservation of the peace...All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all americaments imposed unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, shall be entirely given up, or else be left to the decision of the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned for the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of the, together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and others whom we shall think fit to invite...All the aforesaid customes and liberties, which we have grated to be holden in our kingdom, as much as it belongs to us, all people in our kingdom, as well clergy as laity, shall observe, as far as they are concerned, towards their dependents.
�And whereas, for the honor of God and the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better quieting the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these things aforesaid; willing to render them firm and lasting, we do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security, namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom whom they think convenient, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted them, and by this our present Charter confirmed in this manner...Given under our hand, in the presence of the witnesses above named, and many others, in the meadow called Riningmede, between Windsor and Staines, the 15th day of June, in the 17th year of our reign.
�In the New England area, artifacts such as grave headstones have been found, all with Ogam script in Gaelic script. To this date no one has found the remains of the bodies because of the acid soil which destroys all remains within 100 years or less. Additionally, our early American settlers removed the headstones from the burial sites and placed them in hedgerows along the sides of the fields and so the headstones are not now located near the actual graves.
�The Celts with the Gaelic dialect came from the highlands of Scotland. According to the Scottish Declaration of Independence written by Robert Bruce and his noblemen, the Scotland people came from ancient Israel through the Rhineland area of France and Germany and then through Iberia or Spain."
THE SCOTTISH DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
"To the Most Holy Father in Christ and Lord, the Lord John, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman and Universal Church, his humble and devout sons Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Macolm, Earl of Lennos, William Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Stewart of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, Guardian of the Earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St. Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernathy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet.
�Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. THEY JOURNEYED FROM GREATER SCYTHIA BY WAY OF THE TYRRHENIAN SEA AND THE PILLARS OF HERCULES, AND DWELT FOR A LONG COURSE OF TIME IN SPAIN AMONG THE MOST SAVAGE TRIBES, BUT NOWHERE COULD THEY BE SUBDUED BY ANY RACE, HOWEVER BARBAROUS. THENCE THEY CAME, TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL CROSSED THE RED SEA, TO THEIR HOME IN THE WEST WHERE THEY STILL LIVE TODAY. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.
�THE HIGH QUALITIES AND DESERTS OF THESE PEOPLE, WERE THEY NOT OTHERWISE MANIFEST, GAIN GLORY ENOUGH FROM THIS: THAT THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AFTER HIS PASSION AND RESURRECTION, CALLED THEM, EVEN THOUGH SETTLED IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE EARTH, ALMOST THE FIRST TO HIS MOST HOLY FAITH.
�Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles by calling ‑ through second or third in rank ‑ the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter's brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron for ever.
�The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favors and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harbored no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.
�But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Maccabaeus or Joshua, and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to our laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom ‑ for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. Therefore it is, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beseech your Holiness with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Him Whose vice‑regent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman, you will look with the eyes of a father on the troubles and privations brought by the English upon us and upon the Church of God.
�May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling‑�place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves.
�This truly concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the savagery of the heathen raging the Christians, as the sins of Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day; and how much it will tarnish your holiness's memory if (which god forbid) the Church suffers eclipse or scandal in any branch of it during your time, you must perceive. Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to the help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbors. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbors they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace. He from Whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as the Vicar of Christ and to all Christen�dom. But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favoring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the most High to your charge.
�To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge, we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought. May the Most High preserve you to His Holy Church in holiness and health and grant you length of days. Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid."
��������������������������� THE PETITION OF RIGHT OF 1628
"On June 5, 1628, the House of Commons presented the most extraordinary spectacle, perhaps in all of history. The famous Petition of Right had been passed by both Houses, and the royal answer had just been received. Its tone was that of gracious assent, but it omitted the necessary legal formalities, and the Commons well knew what that meant. They were to be tricked with sweet words, and the petition was not to acquire the force of a statute. How was it possible to deal with such a slippery creature? There was but one way of saving the dignity of the throne without sacrificing the liberty of the people, and that was to hold the king's ministers responsible to Parliament, in anticipation of modern methods. It was accordingly proposed to impeach the Duke of Buckingham before the House of Lords. The Speaker now 'brought an imperious message from the king...warning them that he would not tolerate any aspersion upon his ministers.' Nothing daunted by this, Sir John Eliot arose to lead the debate, when the Speaker called him to order in view of the king's message. 'Amid a deadly stillness' Eliot sat down and burst into tears. For a moment the House was overcome with despair.
�Deprived of all constitutional methods of redress, they suddenly saw yawning before them the direful alternative - slavery or civil war. Since the day of Bosworth a hundred and fifty years had passed without fighting worthy of mention on English soil, such an era of peace as had hardly ever before been seen on the earth; now half the Nation was to be pitied against the other half, families were to be divided against themselves, as in the dreadful days of the Roses, and with what consequences no one could foresee. 'Let us sit in silence,' quoth Sir Dudley Digges, 'we are miserable, we know not what to do!' Nay, cried Sir Nathaniel Rich, 'we must now speak, or forever hold our peace.' Then did grim Mr. Prynne and Sir Edward Coke mingle their words with sobs, while there were few dry eyes in the House. Presently they found their voices, and used them in a way that rung from the startled king his formal assent to the Petition of Right. (The Beginnings of New England, John Fiske, 1889)
�Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King Edward the First, commonly called Statutum de tallagio non concedendo, that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the King of his heirs in this realm, without the good will and assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knight, Burgesses, and other freemen of the commonalty of this realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the King against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a Benevolence, nor by such like charge: by which, the statutes before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in Parliament ...'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
�And in the eight and twentieth year of the reign or King Edward the Third, it was declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man or what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by due process of law...And whereas of large great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers countries of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people.
�And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that no man shall be forejudged or life or limb against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the land; and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death, but by the laws established in this your realm, either by the customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parlia�ment...They do therefore humbly pray your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without common consent by Act of Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come; and that the aforesaid commissions for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
�All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom."
����������������������������������� BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1689
"Whereas the lords spiritual and temporal and commons assembled at Westminster lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight, present unto Their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said lords and commons in the words following: 'Whereas the late king James the Second by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.
�By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power.
�By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court, called the court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes. By levying money for and to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by parliament.
�By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of parliament, and quartering of soldiers contrary to law. By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law.
�By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in parliament.
�By prosecutions in the court of King's bench for matters and causes cognizable only in parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses. And whereas of late years partial, corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders.
�And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
�And excessive fines have been imposed.
�And illegal and cruel punishments have been inflicted.
�And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.
�All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm...
�And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
�That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal.
�That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegal.
�That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegal and pernicious.
�That the levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative without grant of parliament for a longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal.
�That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace unless it be with consent of parliament is against law.
�That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
�That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
�That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
�That excessive bail ought not to be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
�That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. And that for redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthen�ing and preserving of the laws parliaments ought to be held frequently. And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example."
Sir William Blackstone (1723‑1780), the famous English authority on jurisprudence, gives the following definition of Divine Law as it applies to human or man‑ made laws:
"Disobedience to any one of the Divine Commandments throws the whole structure of national life out of harmony with universal law."
He also said:
"On account of the blindness and imperfection of human reasoning, God has given a Divine and direct revelation of His natural laws...to be found in the Scriptures THESE LAWS ARE SUPERIOR IN OBLIGATION and NO HUMAN LAWS HAVE ANY VALIDITY IF CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAWS."
One thing students of history seem to overlook is that American Law is the product of American origin, which in turn was based upon the Laws of God as handed down in the Holy Scriptures. Some American common law was, without a doubt, adapted from the common law of England, but most of the common law was developed in the United States where the custom of the Anglo‑ Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples through their customs handed down through the centuries, established by their citizen juries which adhering to the Christian Bible for their guide, for both Federal and State Governments.
"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, 1 Blackstone Commentaries 42. 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 to regulate the public morals and decency of the community." (Bell vs. The State, 1 Swan (Tenn) 42, p. 44 (1851))
America, in the very beginning, as we have previously shown, established its national character under the various formation documents, as listed before, upon Christian principles and became known as a CHRISTIAN NATION!
"It is conceded that this inhibition apples exclusively to the state. But that term presents a complex idea. A state is a sort of trinity; it exists, acts, and speaks in three capacities: legislative, executive, and judicial. What is forbidden to it in each and all. It may not infringe this article by legislation, but it may equally do so by its courts or its executive authorities." (Ex parte Reynolds et. al, Federal Case No. 11,720)
And the court system of the United States were obliged to follow the Christian doctrine in all of its courts' decisions.
"No position can be more clear than that all the federal judges are bound by the solemn obligation of religion to regulate their decisions agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and that it is the standard of their determination in all cases that come before them." (U.S. vs. Callender, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,709)
The Constitution of the United States of America followed, almost exactly, the republican form of government handed down from the mount to Moses at Mt. Siani when God took Israel for his wife. Hence the name "Israel" which means ruling with God.
"The Constitution emanated from the people, and was not the act of sovereign and independent states. The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.'
�This mode of the proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. (See Exodus 19:7‑8) They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established' in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessing of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people [Just as Moses did in Exodus 19]. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmation of, and could not be negatived by, the state governments [a shadow of which the elders of Israel represented]. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties." (McCulloch vs. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. 403)
One other point we would like to make is that the states, when they joined the union, they were no longer considered separate nations in their own right. Some of their power was, by the mandate of the people, transferred to the Federal Government in order that a single government could come into being.
"The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'
�There can be no doubt that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and supreme authority.
�As little doubt can there be that the people had a right to prohibit to the states the exercise of any powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact; to make the powers of the state governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might not choose to delegate to either. The Constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereign�ties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions, for the powers of the states depend on their own constitutions; and the people of every state had the right to modify and restrain them, according to their own views of policy or principle. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the state governments, by their respective constitu�tions, remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to the government of the United States." (Martin vs. Hunger, (1816) 1 Wheat. 324)
"Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a onstitution by which it was their will that the state governments should be bound, and to which the state constitutions should be made to conform. Every state constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner." (Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793) 2 Dall. 471)
CHRISTIAN HOLIDAYS
Christianity can be seen in the holidays the American people celebrate.
PALM SUNDAY: It is observed the Sunday before Easter to commemorate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD: Commonly known as the First Day of Passover which commemorates the deliverance of our Israel People [The Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred people] from Egyptian bondage.
PASSOVER: One of the most sacred events to be observed by the ancient Israelites and today's Christians.
GOOD FRIDAY: It is observed as the day of Crucifixion [Which actually was on Wednesday] of the Lord Jesus Christ.
EASTER SUNDAY: It is observed in all Christian Churches and is celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon which occurs on or next after March 2 and is therefore celebrated between March 22 and April 25 inclusive.
�� ASCENSION DAY: Observed on May 15, as the day Jesus Ascended into heaven in the presence of His Apostles 40 days after the Resurrection of Christ.
PENTECOST: This day is celebrated as the day the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles 50 days after the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
THANKSGIVING: Observed nationally on the fourth Thursday in November by Act of Congress. Most Americans believe that the holiday dates back to the day of thanks ordered by Governor Bradford of Plymouth Colony in New England in 1621, but scholars point out that the day of thanks stem from ancient Israel and is the day of First Fruits.
CHRISTMAS: Observed as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
"Separation of church and state" is a non‑constitutional battle‑cry in the war against Christianity. It is used to frighten Godly Americans out of the polls, out of government, and back to the pews. The cry of "Separation of church and state" is a blatant distortion of the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.
Are the wicked afraid Christianity and government are somehow going to unite in the future? NO! They are fearful that the American People will become aware, Christianity and government are ALREADY united here in America. And it is THAT CONNECTION between Christianity and government that must be destroyed if the enemies of Christ, Christianity and America are to take absolute control over America and its Israel People [And I don't mean the Jews: WHOM CHRIST CALLED HIS ENEMIES]!
To sever the connection between Christianity and government, they have to separate us from the knowledge of our Christian history and heritage. They must keep us ignorant of the truth that the American Government was Christian from its very beginning. Most patriots realize the Communist left‑wing and the Jewish anti‑Christs wish to destroy Christianity. Marx, Lenin, Stalin and all the other Communist leaders have made that very plain in a thousand different ways.
Well, if it is Christianity they are against, then why don't they just try to change our religion? The answer is obvious; they do, but they also realize the Christian religion could not be destroy until the American Government can be stopped from upholding and protecting it. It is not an accident that an Alexander the Great or a Napoleon has never gone forth from our shores in wars of aggression to fasten the chains of military despotism upon the people of other lands. Because the Constitution protects the liberties of our own people against all ambitious rulers; and no dictator can terrorize other peoples until he had first tyrannized over his own people.
All wars against the liberty of others are fought by men who have lost their own liberty. That is a law of nature, a law of compensation. And in providing that our own people should forever be free, the Constitution went a long way toward insuring the freedom of other peoples from the encroachment at the hands of American Presidents. Liberty comes from God and was incorporated into the Constitution in affirmation of Leviticus 25:10:
"...and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof..."
The Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution a philosophy of peace and international relations which few American people have come to understand because of the rewriting of the history books. They were, in truth, at least 500 years ahead of their time. They enunciated the great American principle, which we are just beginning to appreciate, that we should defend our nation against invasion by not engaging in wars of aggression abroad.
MILITARY
The constitution of ancient Israel did not provide for a standing army, but it was to have a militia as well as a national guard. (Judges 5:23) No aggressive wars were to be allowed. (Judges 34:23) They could not be involved in an aggressive war in a foreign country, because, all the men were to go the capital three times each year. They provided in the Constitution that the liberties of Americans should never be sacrificed on the altar of any cause except that of preserving American liberty. They further provided that no single American citizen should be sacrificed to promote the militaristic ambitions of an administration bent on conquest abroad:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
In the Milligan case, the Supreme Court held that all the Constitutional "securities for personal liberty" are equally safeguarded against seizure or sacrifice in the furtherance of militaristic ends. The Constitution wisely does not forbid Congress from declaring war against foreign nations or sending our soldiers abroad in defense of the United States. No government can enjoy the respect of nations without this right. But it does forbid the scrapping of our liberties in the advancement of any war aiming at aggression. And the Constitution defines wars of aggression in a way which all can understand.
The framers of the Constitution were well acquainted with the device of dictators whereby they embroil their people in an offensive war, and then call it a "defensive" war and use it as an excuse to sweep away the people's liberties. Hence, they provided in the Constitution that only actual invasion can warrant the abridgment of our liberties; the placing of our people under martial law.
In the Milligan case the Court said:
"Martial rule cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration."
The Court went further and said that martial rule could only apply to the "theater of active military operations, where war really prevails." Hence, during the Civil War, the Court held that martial law could not be established in Indiana, merely because there was insurrection in neighboring states:
"It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course."
It is a political reality, that no government ever did injustice abroad before it first did injustice at home. Christ taught that peace and justice among nations could only come through the salvation of individual souls, the regeneration of individual heart. The Constitution of the United States recognizes His Divine Principle that peace cannot prevail throughout the world unless it first prevails in the individual heart and will of man: it recognizes that a government cannot be free unless its citizens are free; that the liberty of peoples is based upon the liberty of individuals; that the destruction of the liberty of peoples issues from the destruction of the liberty of individuals. To safeguard those rights and liberties "which grow out of the essential nature of all free government," to prohibit assaults upon liberty sanctioned by even a majority, the Constitution made the cause of peace and liberty paramount to the ambitions of any class, however numerous, as well as of any individual, within the nation.
Most of the republics of the world have fallen, most of the dictators of the world have risen to power, because clever demagogues have been able to delude and mislead a nominal majority into standing still while the shackles of slavery were riveted upon them and they were marched off to war to fasten shackles upon other peoples.
The Constitution guarded against this: it made human life and liberty sacred, inviolate; it placed life and liberty upon twin pedestals, beyond the power of any governing group to touch or tamper with. In so doing it showed the way to peace; it built a wall against militarism, exemplifying the way to end that mass destruction of life and liberty known as war. The original plan to destroy the Christian religion has been going on for almost 2000 years but it really went into high gear in the twenties when anti‑Christ "sophisticated," subversive professors in our schools of higher learning began teaching, in earnest: "The Bible deserves no reverence; the Ten Commandments no obedience except in so far as they conform to 'modern science.'" In conjunction with this they also taught:
"The Constitution deserves no respect, and no obedience, except in so far as it conforms to modern theories of, and experiments in, government."
The present day assault on the Constitution is the natural and inevitable upshot of the concerted attack on the Bible and the Ten commandments launched so many years ago. Those who think we have outgrown the teachings of the Bible would not be consistent without holding that we have also outgrown a Constitution founded upon them.
Our Founding Fathers believed that in the teachings of Jesus they found the Absolute and Eternal Moral Principles upon which all good government must be based. The Constitution recognizes the validity of the Declaration of Independence. And the Declaration of Independence recognized the supreme validity of Christ's teachings when it declared that "all men are created equal." Which was recognition of the supreme validity of Christ's teachings of the Fatherhood of God when it declared that all men are equally "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Christ taught that the Will of His Father in heaven was a Higher Law than that made by man; than that ordained by the majority; and that if the law of man transgressed this Higher Law of God, the law of man MUST be set aside and disregarded. Christ denied the so‑called "modern" theory that "the majority has a right to do anything it wishes to." He upheld the doctrine, which was enshrined in the Constitution, that the individual has "inalienable rights" which no majority has a right to take from him.
The United States is the only nation on earth which has a Constitution which protects every individual against offense committed by men wielding the strong arm of government. The mere fact that the government itself has embarked upon a great experiment to insure "the greatest good to the greatest number," but that does not excuse an offense done to one single individual; does not justify invasion of the rights of that individual. Under the "Original" American Constitution, Christ's teachings were upheld and every home and person and every child were safe and sacred. Even Congress itself was powerless to commit an offense against them, because the Constitution protected each individual form taking his "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution recognized that the "laws of nature and of nature's God" entitled men to those certain inalienable rights and the Constitution provided that when man‑made laws crossed the "laws of nature and of nature's God" in such way as to deprive an individual of his God‑given rights, then those man‑made laws MUST be set aside; declared invalid. The Supreme Court was established as an instrument to enforce that principle under which the Court was to function as protection against the will of the majority should Congress attempt to abolish entirely, the individual rights guaranteed by the "laws of nature."
Chrysostom said, "The laws of nature are the will of God."� Christ said that we should be obedient first to the Will of God; that His Laws were superior to all others. Which principle was upheld by the "Original" Constitution of the United States. Much is being said on television today, about our Constitution, much of which is false. Just one of the many false ideas being presented to Americans and to our children I will endeavor to explain so that you may understand the true greatness of our Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson observed we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I contend that there is not one in ten‑thousands of Americans who has the faintest idea what Jefferson was saying!
��������������������������������������������� THE SABBATH
For many years most States had laws called Blue Laws. Which forbade most from doing business on Sundays, but few Americans ever really knew why.
The answer is found in part:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." (Exodus 20:8-10); "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:16)
THE WEEKLY SABBATH
When the Israelites of old were in Egyptian bondage, God Almighty told the prophet Moses to have the Israelites kill their passover lambs at a specific time on a particular day. Besides the witness of Moses, what other Biblical character could provide an absolutely factual testimony as to that exact day and hour?
Now consider this: A very special guest is coming to your home for dinner. You have decided to serve a whole roasted lamb. To be assured that the lamb will be fresh, you have decided not to have it killed until the last minute. At what time should you have the lamb killed so that you can serve your special dinner guest the roast lamb at 6 p.m.? The answers to these questions are found in the Holy Writ and are critical elements in determining which day of the week is the Sabbath and at what time of day the Sabbath begins.
Part One: From When to When?
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." (Exodus 31:15, 17)
The purpose of Part I of this study is to establish solely from the Holy Bible - which we believe to be the inspired Word of God - the time of day for the beginning and ending of each weekly Sabbath.
Part II will deal with which day of the week is the Sabbath.
Part III will answer some potential objections to these conclusions. The Holy Bible gives us many examples and warnings that we are to follow and apply in our lives today.
In Matthew 15:9 - Christ told us:
"...in vain do they worship me, teachings for doctrines the commandments of men."
In Matthew 15:1-9 - Christ calls the Pharisees hypocrites. In verse 6 he tells them that they have,
"...made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition." {which are the traditions of men}.
In Titus 1:10-16 : The Apostle Paul tells that there are:
"...deceivers, specially of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped..."
Paul went on to tell us in verse 14 not to listen to or follow:
"...Jewish fables, and COMMANDMENTS OF MEN, that turn from the truth..."
Those same teachings of "Phariseeism" which Christ and Paul warned us about are being taught today by the "deceivers of the circumcision" who worship in "synagogues" and teach the "traditions of men" and call those traditions "the commandments of God." Make no mistake about it those deceivers are spreading their "Jewish fables" and are "turning from the truth" millions of people in regards to the true Sabbath of Scripture and are causing people to follow their "Jewish traditions," thereby profaning God's true and holy Sabbath. In this study we will learn from the Scripture when God's true weekly Sabbath begins and ends.
Shortly before his death, Moses, the prophet of God, told the Israelites the blessings and the curses that Almighty God had assigned to His people, the sons and daughters of Jacob/Israel. You can read about them in Deuteronomy, chapters 28 through 34. There you will learn to whom they apply, and in 28:46 you will learn how long those blessing and curses will be in effect:
"...they shall be upon thee for a sign and a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever."
You might be wondering at this point; what has all this to do with which day of the week is the Sabbath. Our answer is "Everything!" As you read on, you will be seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy right up to the present day. Moses made this prophecy before the Israelites entered into Canaan land. As we read the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah and all the other prophets, we find that whenever the Israelites obeyed God's commandments, which includes keeping His Sabbath, that none of their enemies could stand before them, and their prosperity was beyond comprehension to the nations around them. The most famous account, of course, was that of King Solomon, of whom it is written:
"...King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and wisdom. And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." (1 Kings 10:23-24)
As you read the history of Israel in the Bible, you will see that as long as Israel obeyed God's laws, and kept His Sabbaths, they prospered; but when they disobeyed and violated His Sabbaths and went a-whoring after other gods, then the curses of Deuteronomy 28 were again showered upon them and they prospered. This was no accident, but only God fulfilling His promises. This up and down, roller-coaster prosperity that followed the Israelites has been going on now for over 3,000 years. This might seem like a long time, but when you re-read the prophecy you will notice that the blessings and the curses will follow the Israelites and be "...upon thy seed for ever."
Prophecy Fulfilled In America: Sometime around 1611 A.D., a group of Israelites left the shores of Europe and headed west. Their written and expressed intentions and beliefs were that they were the blood/genetic descendants of Jacob. Israel and that they were going to the NEW CANAANLAND that God had told King David that He would ordain for them, a place from which they would never have to move again.
"Moreover I [God] will appoint A PLACE FOR MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, and will plant them, THAT THEY MAY DWELL IN A PLACE OF THEIR OWN, AND MOVE NO MORE; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime." (2 Samuel 7:10);
"Also I [God] will ordain A PLACE FOR MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, and will plant them, and THEY SHALL DWELL IN THEIR PLACE, AND SHALL BE MOVED NO MORE: neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning." (1 Chronicles 17:9)
�For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, AND SET THEM IN THEIR OWN LAND: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.� (Isaiah 14:1)
�And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, AND WILL BRING THEM TO THEIR OWN LAND, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country.� (Ezekiel 34:13)
�And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, AND BRING THEM INTO THEIR OWN LAND.� (Ezekiel 37:21)
Can you not see, God told David, while he was in his home in Jerusalem, in the Promised land that He [God] would move the Israelites to another place, which would be their home forever. They arrived at a place they called "Plymouth," and there set up their community; they covenanted together to abide by the laws of God. They kept His Sabbaths; they punished or executed those persons who disobeyed God's laws. Other Israelites came from all parts of Europe and from around the world: Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Scandinavians, Celts and other kindred people WHO ARE THE BLOOD DESCENDANTS OF JACOB/ISRAEL TODAY.
They built the greatest nation on earth; in the history of the world; they prospered beyond any nation in history. They were the most loved, respected and feared nation in the world. Their might and power were unmatched throughout the world. Why? That question is probably best answered by the statement of a French philosopher who came to America to find out why America was so great. After searching out the country's industry, commerce, agriculture, etc., yet he could not find the answer. The he visited America's churches and across the land he heard ministers on every Sabbath preaching obedience to God's laws. He returned to France and wrote:
"...America is great because America is good, but when America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great..."
This is just another indication of the blessings of Deuteronomy 28 that God put upon the "seed of Israel" according to His promise. The Sabbath Observed in America: For centuries, until 1925, the United States and most of the rest of the world started and ended their day at 12 noon. On Saturday at noon businesses closed, the post office shut down, all government offices closed until Monday morning. This included the military.
The people stopped their work and began their Sabbath rest. They took their Saturday night bath; they attended church services the following morning. After church services were over and the Sabbath was at an end, they would go home or visit friends for their Sunday dinner. After dinner they relaxed or played games or sports for their recreation (re-creation and rejuvenation). They could also water and feed their animals without breaking Gods Sabbath, thus bringing down the death penalty upon themselves.
This is how the weekly Sabbath was observed, in general, throughout the United States. It was during this era - while the Israelites of this country were obeying God's laws and keeping His Sabbaths - that our country was blessed and prospered to become the mighty nation that it was - still another example of God keeping His promises of Deuteronomy 28.
The Curses: Just like their fathers of old, these modern Israelites just couldn't stand all that prosperity; so, like their fathers of old, they started whoring after other gods; the god of money, the god of materialism, the god of sex and fornication, the god of baby sacrifice in the abrotitoriums, the god of sodomy and lesbianism - need I go on? Now, mind you, it didn't all happen at once. No, it was very gradual and very subtle. Most preachers today will tell you it was the work of the devil, but Scripture tells us it is the evil lusts of our own hearts. (James 1:12-15; 1 John 2:16-17; Romans 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 Peter 4:2 to name just a few)
It started out by ignoring some little laws. That didn't seem too bad, so a few more laws were ignored. We changed the time of starting the day and gradually drifted away from observing God's true Sabbath, and started profaning it by letting stores stay open on Saturday afternoon. We stopped executing the death penalty for crimes worthy of death. We then allowed businesses to stay open seven days a week, and we Christians patronized them. We allowed freedom of choice for those who wished to kill their unborn babies. We accepted the sodomite life style as an alternative in our government employees as well as in private life. The alleged Christian churches condoned sodomy and they ordained sodomites into the ministry.
Today, the highest office in the land, the presidency of the United States, is held by a male who, along with his wife, promote this detestable, degenerate, abominable life style. And what has happened to our nation's wealth, its might, respect, morals, etc.? They have reached their lowest point in history, in direct proportion to our disobedience to God's laws.
The worst part of it all is that we have professing Christians who have been deceived into believing that God doesn't mind if we start His Sabbath on just any day of the week, or on a Wednesday, or Friday night, or Sunday morning. they expect God to pour out His promised blessings upon us. They just can't understand why God doesn't bless them as He did before.
Not Till We Obey: No, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters in Christ, fellow Israelites, don't expect our heavenly Father to honor His part of the covenant in regards to His blessings, until we do our part by keeping His weekly Sabbath as we did in days gone by: from 12 o'clock noon, the beginning of the seventh day; which we call Saturday noon, 12 o'clock noon the following day, which we call Sunday noon. Then we need to study God's laws diligently and see how there were very few laws that were done away with by Christ's death (the blood ordinances and Levitical rituals, etc.). Then we must put those laws into practice. Then, and only then, will God look upon our affliction, see that we have repented, and start again to pour out His blessings upon us, and start to heal our land as He promised in 2 Chronicles 7:14:
"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."
The Bottom Line: Most of you who have read this study:
1).� Love and worship the only true God.
2).� Don't have any idols you bow down to and worship.
3).� You don't take God's name in vain.
4).
5).� You honor your fathers and mothers.
6).� You don't commit murder.
7).� You don't commit adultery.
8).� You don't steal.
9).� You don't bear false witness against your neighbor.
10). You don't covet your neighbors wife or goods.
How about #4, the one that says "keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee?" God set aside a specific 24 hour period each week, that He wants us to set aside out of our work week to keep holy unto him. You now know that 12 o'clock noon is when God says we are to begin our 24 hour day. You now know that God's weekly Sabbath begins at 12 o'clock noon on the day that we call Saturday, and it ends at 12 o'clock noon on the day that we call Sunday. The final question is, WILL YOU "keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee?"
Part III: Yes, But What About...?
Right now, many of you may be saying:
"This all sounds pretty convincing, but I know of a passage or several passages that appear to contradict the belief that the Bible Sabbath starts at 12 o'clock noon on Saturday and ends at 12:00 o'clock noon on Sunday."
Matthew 28:1: One of the most common passages that seems to be contradictory is found in the gospel of Matthew chapter 28, verse 1, which states:
"IN the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn TOWARD the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."
Let us start with the very first word: "In." "In" is word #1722 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, it is: "A primary preposition, denoting a fixed position in time ..." This word (#1722 has been translated as 35 different words, which means it can have many different meanings, depending on the context in which it is being used. It has been translated as: "toward" and "before" on at least four occasions. We believe that either "toward" or "before" would have been a more correct translation because the context of the passage so indicates. It says further on in this passage: "...As it began to dawn TOWARD the first day of the week..." The word "toward" here very clearly tells us that it was not yet the first day of the week, but that that time was soon coming. Consider this: It is just beginning "to dawn;" it is "before" "the end of the Sabbath."
The time of the year is shortly after the "spring Equinox" when daylight and dark hours are nearly equal, therefore "dawn" is around 6:00 a.m. There are still six more hours to go before 12:00 o'clock noon, (when the first day of the week will begin). This is the hour that the two Marys went to Christ's sepulchre. The Sabbath has nearly ended and the first day of the week is near. We believe this will clear up the confusion brought about by the old English style of writing found in the King James Bible.
Exodus 16:19: In Exodus, chapter 16, we learn that God gives the Israelites "manna" to take the place of grain for their main staple of food. Moses told the people not to leave any of the "manna" till the morning. We find this in Exodus 16:19: "And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till morning." We learned in Part I that morning begins at midnight, so we see here that Moses is telling the people not to keep the manna overnight. Each morning they were to gather as much manna as they would need to eat for their meals that day, but they were not to try to save any overnight, except on the sixth day, when they were to gather twice as much, which was to last them through the Sabbath, since there would be none to be gathered on the Sabbath. The day starts as 12:00 noon. Midnight comes 12 hours later. Sunrise comes at about the 18th hour of the 24 hour day. Noon comes at the 24th hour and another day begins.
When Moses told the Israelites to gather a double portion of manna on the sixth day, he was referring to the 18th hour of the sixth day. This double portion would then provide them with the anna that they would normally have gathered on the seventh day, around the 18th hour. By the 18th hour of the FIRST DAY of the week, they would again find manna in the fields.
The Last Supper: Many people say that the last supper of Christ which was the Israelite Passover does not support the "noon to noon" belief. Let's go to the Scripture and see if that statement is true or not. We don't believe that anyone will deny the fact that Christ knew when the Passover was to be killed and eaten; nor is it likely that anyone will deny that Christ and His apostles kept the Passover according to the law given to Moses for the Israelites.
We will start by reading the pertinent facts of the "last supper," starting in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 14, verse 12:
"...The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, [Christ's] disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover? [13] And he sendeth forth two of his disciples...[16] And they made ready the Passover. [17] And in THE EVENING he cometh with the twelve. [18] And...they sat and did eat..."
Here we see in verses 12 through 16, that the two apostles prepared the Passover. To prepare the Passover they had to get a lamb; they had to kill the lamb and drain the blood; they then had to skin it. Next they had to roast it with fire until it was completely cooked because the law forbade them to eat it raw. All this takes AT LEAST five to six hours. In verse 17 we learn that Christ and His apostles came and sat down to eat the Passover "in the EVENING." This word "evening" is the Greek word #3798 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it means: "Late afternoon or nightfall." The Israelite Passover comes two weeks after the "Spring Equinox." That is the time of the year when nightfall comes around 6:00 o'clock p.m. Now remember, the "two apostles" didn't "prepare" the Passover at 6:00 p.m.; they ate the Passover with Christ at 6:00 p.m. Simple arithmetic will tell anyone that if they ate the Passover at 6:00 p.m., and if it takes about six hours to make all the preparations for the Passover to be eaten, then we must realize that the "two apostles" started the preparations around 12:00 o'clock noon: which was the start of the Israelite Passover day.
Christ: Our Passover Lamb: Numerous Scriptures tell us that Christ is our Passover Lamb. (See 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:19; John 1:29, 36; Revelation 5:5-14; 7:9-14; 21:14) Some people say that Christ's death does not coincide with the "noon to noon" belief. We will now go to the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, and Mark, Chapter 15, to see if the above statement is true or not. Matthew 27:1-2 tells us:
"When the MORNING was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: [2] And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor."
The above-stated "morning" is the morning after Christ had eaten the Passover; prayed in the garden; was arrested and taken before Caiaphas and falsely judged by him. Now we will go to the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 15. Here we learn in verses 15 through 37; the sentence by Pilate; the hour when Christ was nailed to the stake; the hours of darkness and the hour of His death. (Mark 15:15, 25, 33-34, 37)
"...Pilate...delivered Jesus, and when he had scourged him, to be crucified...[25] It was the third hour, and they crucified him...[33] And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the land until the ninth hour. [34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...[37) Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost."
To understand what we are being told in the above passages we must first understand that at the time of Christ's crucifixion, the Israelites were under Roman rule, and the Pharisees were in charge over Israel on a local level. At that point of time in history the Pharisees had already changed the time when a day was to begin. Instead of having the day start at noon, the Pharisees changed it to start at sunset. Because sunset is always changing, they settled on 6:00 p.m. as the start of their day. (In The Encyclopaedic Dictionary by Robert Hunter and Charles Morris, printed in 1896, we read on page 1450 under the word "day:" "Among the Jews the day began at sunset...")
The Jews divided their day into two 12 hour periods. The first 12 hour period started at sunset and went to sunrise and was called the "first" through the "twelfth" hour. At sunrise they start their second 12 hour period. This second half of the Pharisees' official day started at 6:00 o'clock in the morning. Therefore, 7:00 o'clock was their "first hour," 8:00 o'clock was their "second hour." 9:00 o'clock was their "third hour," and so on. Therefore the terms; third hour, sixth hour and ninth hour were terms used in the gospel accounts.
In verse 25 above, we are told that Christ was actually nailed to the stake at 9:00 a.m., which was their third hour. Christ then hung on the cross from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon. Verse 33 tells us that from 12:00 noon until 3:00 p.m. "...There was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour." [3:00 p.m.] It was during this period of time that the prophecy of Isaiah 53:8 was fulfilled:
"He was taken from prison and from judgment...for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."
At 3:00 p.m. Christ cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost and died. We find in verse 34 and 37:
[34] "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...[37] Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost."
We can plainly see by the above passages that Christ was killed shortly after 12:00 noon, (which in the Old Testament is often referred to as: "even, the going down of the sun") which is in keeping with the law as spelled out in Deuteronomy 16:6:
"...Thou shalt sacrifice the passover at EVEN, at the going down of the sun..."
There were other ways that Christ could have been executed, but to fulfill prophecy, Christ had to die by crucifixion, which is a slow and very painful death. It was finally completed by 3:00 p.m., not at sunset as the modern day Jews (Pharisees) would have us believe.
The High Sabbath of John 10:31: Many people read John 19:31 and say: "See, it is very clear that the Sabbath was to begin at sundown." Those people are absolutely correct. As we pointed out earlier in Part III: the Pharisees - under Roman rule - were in charge of the Israelites. Also, we pointed out that the day began at sunset for the Pharisees (the Jews): "Among the Jews the day began at sunset..." Therefore the high Sabbath day which followed Christ's crucifixion was to begin at sunset, because it was the Jews' (Pharisees') time to start their day. I repeat: SUNDOWN IS THE BEGINNING OF THE PHARISEES' DAY AND THE BEGINNING OF THE PHARISEES' SABBATH AND IT WAS THE "PHARISEES' SABBATH" that John was recording in this verse. This is what John 19:31 says:
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath day, (for THAT SABBATH DAY WAS AN HIGH DAY), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away."
This Sabbath day, which was the Pharisees' "high day" was another of the Pharisees' perversion of God's law: specifically the law which is recorded in Exodus, Chapter 12, which was given to the Israelites before the first passover. In Exodus 12:15-16 we read:
�[15] Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses...[16] IN THE FIRST DAY THERE SHALL BE AN HOLY CONVOCATION, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you."
In verse 16 we see that the first day of "unleavened bread," when the passover is to be killed, is to be an "holy convocation," which is a "sacred meeting." The first day of unleavened bread is also to be a Sabbath of rest wherein no work, except food preparation, is to be done. We pointed out in the section entitled "The Last Supper" that Christ and His apostles did, on the first day of unleavened bread, prepare and eat the passover, according to the law.
You will see by the following verses that the Pharisees started the preparation for their Passover at a different time than Christ; and that the Pharisees also had their "holy convocation" which they called a "high Sabbath day" on the second, not the first day of unleavened bread as was required by law. Let us now turn to the Gospel of John, Chapters 18 & 19 for confirmation of this truth. John 18:28 tells us:
"Then led they [the Pharisees] Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment [where Pontius Pilate judged]: and it was early; and they themselves [the Pharisees] went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover."
Here we learn that Christ, who had already eaten the passover the night before, was brought before Pilate, but the Pharisees refused to enter the judgment hall because if they had, according to Pharisee law, they would have been defiled and would not have been able to eat their passover. John 19:13-14 tells us:
"[13]...Pilate...brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat...[14] and it was the preparation of the passover..."
Here we have a second witness that the day that Pilate judged Christ was on the PHARISEES' passover preparation day. Later on, after Christ's death, we are told in John 19:31:
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day), besought Pilate that ...they might be taken away."
We see here that it was still the Pharisees' passover preparation day and that the Jews (the Pharisees) wanted the bodies to be taken off of the crosses before sundown when the Pharisees' high Sabbath day was to begin. Remember, this was NOT the weekly or seventh day Sabbath, but it was a special "high Sabbath."
There are several other "high� Sabbaths" or holy convoca-tions in Scripture and they can be found in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 and 29. It now becomes very clear that the "high Sabbath day" of John 19:31 was NOT the Sabbath of Israel, but it was the "high Sabbath of the Pharisees" and therefore, because the Pharisees started their day at sunset, they also started THEIR "high Sabbath" of John 19:31 at sunset.
If you check with any Jewish synagogue today you will find that they still follow this same Pharisaical practice of starting their weekly Sabbath and their Passover Sabbath at sundown, simply because they are following the same teachings as the Pharisees of Christ's time.
Scriptural Warnings: The Pharisees of Christ's time and the Pharisees of today, whom we call "Jews," did not then, nor do they today, start their "day" according to Scripture; they do not start their "Sabbath" according to Scripture; and they do not observe "the Passover" according to Scripture. Therefore Christians of today should look to the Jews of today for NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING! Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, please remember Christ's warning to His disciples:
"...Take heed and beware of the leaven [doctrines or teaching] of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6, 12)
And finally, remember Paul's warning to us as recorded in the Book of Titus, Chapter 3, verse 14:
"...not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."
When you go to the Jews or Jewish writings, you will get nothing but "Jewish fables," and where you spend eternity may lie in the balance.
Epilogue: The Christian Bible Sabbath begins at noon on Saturday and ends at noon on Sunday. The Jewish Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday night and ends at sundown on Saturday night. WHICH ONE WILL YOU CHOOSE? May the God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob bless you and encourage you to diligently search the Scriptures to see if what we tell you is true. (Acts 17:11)
In his original draft, Jefferson was going to use "Life, Liberty and Property," but the sagacious Franklin corrected him by observing that life depended on property as our necessities of life: food, clothing and materials for shelter came from the land. In addition, he observed that a man can only be free if he depends on no one to provide these things, and therefore property is the base and foundation of ALL RIGHTS. Jefferson conceded and changed the draft wording to its current form. Jefferson and Franklin understood the nature of property and its relationship to Rights. Let us investigate his concept and see if we can come to the same understanding.
Our Founding Fathers were devout men and took the majority of their education from the Bible [In spite of that which is being presented today notwithstanding]. If we go to the Bible and research it to find out what is the concept of property as understood by our Founding Fathers, we come up with ideas which your children will not learn in our public GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS. As we start our search we find the first such grant by the Creator God in Genesis 1:28, where God grants Adam dominion. Sounds good, Huh? What the heck is dominion, you may ask? Well, first you must understand that the Bible is a Law Book and it starts to make more sense. Since we are dealing with law, laws are words and words have specific meanings. Let's go to a Law Dictionary: "Ownership or right to property."
God gave Adam property! The second part of the definition should spark all of us, for dominion is also "Sovereignty or lordship." Could this be the coveted sovereignty proclaimed by the patriot community? The answer to this is a resounding "YES"!!! There is, however, a catch. In order to exercise dominion you must comply with the terms of the agreement. In Adam's time, the agreement was simple and only consisted of one commandment, it would appear at first glance, that Adam was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As you know, the commandment was broken and Adam lost the dominion and the ground was cursed to him. As the story goes on, we come to the story of Noah, whose was the only family holding to God's Law.
The flood cleansed the [Earth of the] unrighteous and left Noah to enjoy the dominion. Next is Abraham, a goodly servant of God, and his seed forever obtained the dominion. On the story goes to Moses when he received the Law and obtained the ratification of the children of Israel. (Exodus 24:3) Now, the astute student will discover that whenever the Israelites obeyed the Law, they prospered, and when they disobeyed they went into slavery. Disobedience in today's terms is called "breach of contract." Look closely, dominion goes to he who fulfills the Law. In the course of all history, only one has fulfilled the Law, and that is Jesus the Christ. With His life, Jesus obtained perfect dominion and as such has the right to the property of the earth, the fulness thereof the world and they that dwell therein. (Psalms 24) What has all this to do with the Founding Fathers? The Founding Fathers understood the concept and requirements of dominion and recognized that Jesus had the Sovereignty. That is why, when Washington was asked to be king in this land, he replied:
"...We have no King but Jesus."
Our Founding Fathers recognized Jesus as the absolute potentate and Sovereign [We have no King but Jesus]. Within the past year, you have heard that the Founding Fathers established a nation where only property holders could participate in the governing process. That is quite correct, but you have been misled as to what this property is.
PROPERTY
It is a principle of political philosophy, that property, the soil, is the natural foundation of power, and consequently of authority. Hence, the natural foundation of every govern-ment, may be said to be laid in the distribution of its territories, its land, its property. Let's look at that word "property." Property:
"In a strict legal sense, land is not property but the subject of property. The term property, although in common parlance applied to a tract of land or a chattel, in its legal significance means only the right of the owner in relation to it...Property is the right of any person to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary)
This can be seen in the following supposition.
FIRST: If the government or lending institutions [or those who control the government or lending institutions from behind the scenes] own the property, the land, or is in control of it; or to allow the use of it at their pleasure, the citizens of that government must also be subject to the will ofthe government: thus the citizen will be in the condition of slaves, rather than of freemen.
SECOND: If the property or land of a country be shared among a few men, the rest of the citizens of the country are merely vassals under their control; and the real power of government will be in the hands of those few; authority will thus be lodge in those few men [who control the govern-ment or lending institutions]. In other words the government [nation] will then be under the total control of those few men. Thus the citizens of that country or nation will also be under the total control of those in their every action or unaction of life.
If you do not believe that statement, then name one thing a citizen of the United States of America can do without some sort of federal, state, county or city government regulation controlling that action!
THIRD: If the property or land of a country be divided among all those who compose the population or citizenry of its society, the true power of that country or government would reside in all the members of citizens as a whole.
Therefore, society itself would thus constitute a Real Republic, whatever form of union may be adopted for the better direction of the whole as a political body. Under such a condition; the private ownership of the land, home and lots, buildings, etc., the citizens themselves will have ultimate control of that nation. They will not need to have this power conferred upon them by express grant or law, it will fall into their hands by the natural force of circumstances.
There is no truth in political science more easy to comprehend, more open to the view of all, or more certainly known by universal experience, than that the men who own the territories, property or land of a state will exercise a predominating influence over the public affairs of that state. There is no more sure way to destroy a nation and its people than by depriving them of the ownership of the land or property of the nation. Greece and Rome are two prime examples where a nation allowed greedy treacherous men to remove the ownership of the property from the citizens and deposit it in the hands of the government. This is precisely what treacherous men in the federal, state, county and cities lay taxes upon a persons property, for by the instigation of taxes ‑ the federal, state, county or city effectively owns the lands or property and not the citizen.
You don't believe it, then do not pay your property taxes and just see who owns the land. You will know as you sit in the street saying they can't do this to me! So, you see, property is not the dirt, but a right to the dirt, and who has that right to the dirt? Why, as our Founding Fathers knew, that right vested only in the body of Christ. Who are the body of Christ?
"So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Romans 12:5)
Now is it becoming clear that when the Founders restricted the government to property owner, THEY UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN that NO ONE COULD PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT WHO DID NOT PROFESS JESUS CHRIST AS THE SAVIOUR; AS THE SOVEREIGN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! This is why our Constitution forbids Titles of Nobility, for there is only one title of Nobility recognized in this country, this Israel which was to come, that being, Jesus Christ is King. We the body of Christ, have been charged with a responsibility to "Occupy 'till I come.'" (Luke 19:13) Occupy is a legal term meaning, "To hold in possession." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary)
The Homestead acts and land patents which were once laws of every state, but have been removed by antichrists and the enemies of America have removed from most through deception; because our people did not study to keep themselves informed. American laws were originally based upon the Biblical precepts laid out in Leviticus 25:10‑13; 27:24; Numbers 36:2; Joshua 16:4; 17:4; 19:1; Judges 2:6; and Ruth 4:6.
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession."
"In the year of the jubile the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong."
"So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance."
"And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father."
"And they said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters." Etc.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6)
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timithy 2:15)
The words of our LORD then says:
"...If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke 19:42‑44)
The Scriptures then relate:
"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." (Romans 13:11)
Not understanding what our Founding Fathers understood and meant has brought us to the point where we are today. Where we have Prostitute Supreme Court Justices such as the Zionist‑ Communist‑antichrist‑Jewish controlled spawn of Satan; Thurgood Marshall who said recently in Newsweek:
"Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall objected to some of the pietism attending the 200th anniversary of the Constitution. Speaking to a lawyers' group in Hawaii, he said, 'The document had been defective from the start. I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever fixed at the Philadelphia convention.'"
Marshal, and others of his ilk, want to "fix it." I say it doesn't need fixing; it needs to be obeyed! It needs to duly be understood and adhered to if we are going to maintain freedom of movement in this land, and if you are not going to become a slave it is going to be up to you to speak out against these treasonous efforts to bring about a new Constitution of Interdependence. The article went on to say concerning the Present Constitution:
"The United States as a nation is famously lucky. (See this un‑Godly creep as a Supreme Court Justice is denying God and His intervention which helped America to gain its independence for without Him we would still be an English Possession! Thus we can clearly see among other things Mr. Marshall is a liar and a Disciple of Satan) Its primal luck was geography and timing: a wild natural abundance that was encountered by gifted men and women in a clear rational blue of Enlightenment. '(History shows that it wasn't an age of enlightenment. It was men and women who knelt down in the snow and in the sand, and planted the staff and said 'We are God's Covenant People, and we want to purify ourselves in the Word of God for this nation, that we can truly be a CITY SET ON A HILL AND A NATION THAT HONORS GOD ALMIGHTY AND JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOUR)...The Constitution was drafted in a moment of ascendant science, political science preached by Locke and Montesquieu, for example, and belief in the power of reason to subdue the savage and ignorant regions of the mind."
It is my firm belief we have savage and ignorant people, such as Mr. Thurgood Marshall, and they are those who belong to organizations that want to do away with a document that, through the Grace of God, has kept us free for over 200 years. We, as a people, had better realize it's going to take a made up mind and a desire to FOLLOW AFTER GOD AND JESUS CHRIST in sincerity and in truth. So our Television Commentators are saying in effect;
"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...YOUR WRETCHED REFUSE...your alien gods...your idols of wood and stone...your HEATHEN TEMPLES and SYNAGOGUES...your alien PHILOSOPHIES...your TROJAN HORSES of subversion...give us anything and everything..."
And this is what America has opened its gates to over the last several decades ‑‑ anything and everything. The purpose for which France presented the United States with the Statue of Liberty in 1886 was inscribed thereon:
"A gift from the people of the Republic of France to the people of the United States. This statue of Liberty Enlightening the World commemorates the alliance of the two nations in achieving independence of the U.S., attest to their abiding friendship."
The Statue of Liberty had NOTHING to do with immigration as poet Emma Lazarus apparently assumed according to her poem, which was inscribed on the statue in 1906. It had NOTHING to do WITH PHASING OUT CHRISTIANITY and TURNING OUR NATION INTO A HUMANISTIC, HOMOGENIZED MELTING POT OF WHITE, BLACK, YELLOW AND RED HEATHENS as many would like to believe.
POSTERITY
OUR FOREFATHERS ESTABLISHED THIS NATION FOR "THEIR" POSTERITY. As stated in the Preamble to the Constitution,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and TO THEIR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitu�tion of the United States of America."
Since our forefathers were White Christians, so, their posterity would be the same. They did not suffer the hardships in the years following the landing at Plymouth Rock by the Puritans or endure the horrors of the war of independence to establish this nation as a melting pot of alien races, religions and cultures! In spite of what you have been told and taught!!! We have repeated the same mistakes our forefathers made in ancient Israel. By allowing the "mixed multitude" to enter with their customs and practices, so much so that nearly every segment of society has been corrupted or adulterated. God said:
"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36:24‑27)
This is a perfect description of America and Americans. These, they are the sources of our strength and tradition. With such a heritage it is almost inconceivable and all but impossible for Americans to believe that another would work within a conspiracy to destroy everything Americans believe in.
In his "Commentaries," Blackstone gave what is accepted as the most complete and accurate definition of the "law of nature." By reading his definition, the conclusion become evident that there is a Divine Basis in the Moral Order of the Universe for regarding as invalid all man‑made laws which transgress Natural Law:
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator...The will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature, being coequal with mankind, and dictated by God Himself, is...superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original...Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these...if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we offend both the natural and the divine."
Lord Bryce said that the belief in Natural Law, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and upheld by the Constitution, is the fruit of the teachings of Christ. In his essay on "The Law of Nature," he concludes:
"But it is clear that the influence of Christian teaching... stimulated the vindication in the name of Natural Law of principles which are the foundation both of civil and religious liberty."
In these words, Lord Bryce expounded the great principle of Natural Law, as it is embodied and enshrined in our National Charter of American Liberty:
"It is an assertion of the supremacy of the eternal principles of morality...It proclaims the responsibility to God of all power, whether spiritual or temporal, and the indestructible rights of the individual human being. Finding in Divine Justice the ultimate source of all law, it imposes a restraint upon the force which positive (man‑made) law has at its command, and sets limits to the validity of positive (man‑ made) laws themselves."
There are only two theories as to the "ultimate source of all law." One finds the source of all law in the Will, the Moral Law, of God, in Divine Justice. The other finds the source of all law in the will of self‑willed men in a dictator or a dictatorial mob. The first theory looks to the unchanging Word of God and the Divinely implanted conscience of man for the Eternal Moral Law, upon which human law should be based.
The second theory denies the existence of an enduring Moral Law. It asserts that morals are but "the fashions of the people," and that as fashions, morals must change as fashions in law, justice, religion and constitutions. It claims that there are no Eternal Ethical Principles; that men who live in castles must have a different morality ‑‑ a different constitution than those who live in plain houses. This is the theory of Karl Marx [As taught to him in the teachings of the Jewish Talmud]; the theory upon which all forms of unconstitutional collectivism are predicated.
While the opposite theory, the first theory stated, is that of Jesus Christ; the theory upon which the Constitution of the United States is predicated upon. Christ said that the Moral Principles which He stated were for all times, in all ages. Marx said that every age evolves its own moral principles, as it evolves its own styles and manners. Christ taught that ethical standards are derived from ABOVE ‑‑ from His Father in heaven. Marx taught that ethical fashions are derived from BELOW ‑‑ are an outgrowth of the material conditions of life;
"The material processes of life determine the religious, moral and spiritual process of life."
They follow the philosophy of Karl Marx, and as laid out in the Talmud, who say that a change in the material conditions of life entails or necessitates a change in the guiding ethical principles enthroned in the Constitution. Americans today generally envision a scenario where Americans are truly "at peace" and "dwelling safely (confidently)" without need of physical walls, bars and gates to protect them. And, to a certain extent they are correct because many Americans are dwelling confidently when it come to thinking about the USSR. They are so optimistic about the one‑world government and then end of the so‑called "cold war."
But, are Americans truly "safe," or are they just brainwashed into THINKING they are safe? Americans may be dwelling safely from foreign enemies ‑ but what about domestic enemies? What about the enemy who strikes every one of us every day? This enemy destroys more lives and hurts more people than any other thing you can name. He steals and lies with impunity.
Even though foreign troops are not marching against us within our borders, the American citizen is being plundered daily. He lives under constant threat of punishment by arbitrary powers; by his own government. He is forced to give up all personal privacy. Rights of ownership of private property have been taken from him by his conquerors. He is living under Communism just as much as the citizens of Russia! And yet he does not realize it, so he thinks he dwells safely. But why? How does this invading force remain unrecognized?
������������������������������� DEGENERATION OF SOCIETY
Americans, have been watching the degeneration of their society, the increase in violence, drugs, pornography, and the fanatical rise in the national debt, and asks what will we do when America falls into Socialism, Communism, insolvency and surrender. Make no mistake about it, the Thought‑theology of what we understand is Communism HAS taken over in America. It is not called by that name however, it is called Socialism. The Hammer and Sickle does not adorn our flag, but we are under the control of Communism just as surely as there is a God in Heaven and that Jesus Christ sits at His right hand.
Does that sound preposterous? Think about it. How would we know "when Communism, is sold as democracy," is the ultimate law of the land? Those who are not employing "more powerful levers and more subtle webs" have succeeded in their plans, so far, and most of those living in this country may not notice much of a difference from what they think of as the American Way these days! To demonstrate that this is true, we will list what has been called the ten basic planks of the Communist Manifesto, for your study and review.
1). Abolition of Property in Land, and Application of all rents to public use.
Did you know that the Federal Government of Washington, D.C., now owns over 40% of the land mass of the United States? That is more land than the entire country east of the Mississippi River. It does so in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The Federal Government now owns more than 10% of all industrial properties, railroads, barge lines, etc. As the government takes over more and more land, that property is taken off the tax rolls, and thus increases the taxes all of us must pay on the land we suppose that we own.
Most Americans think they own their land. They think that a certain parcel upon which they live actually belongs to them. Have your lawyer explain to you why your deeds have been drawn as they have or why you and your wife are called "tenants in common" and other strange language and phrases in the world of law. Here is the rule of law: If you must pay the state or country a "property tax," and the state or country can sell your property to someone else if you fail to pay the tax, you are not the actual and lawful owner of that land or property! Marx called the use tax on land, rent.
Today it is called "property tax" and while universally accepted by most Americans, the property tax is 100% Marxist (Communist) in nature. The land that is still informally held in private hands, is now subject to state and municipal controls called "land use" and you can only do certain things on land that you suppose you own. If you actually owned it, instead of being merely a "tenant with a vested interest in it," no City, State or Federal controls could be imposed upon it. You sit tight when the Federal Government tells you, via an unconstitutional statute, that you must rent "your property" to anyone who comes to your door, regardless of race, color, national origin and sexual preference.
From whence did they get the lawful jurisdiction to tell you what you can do on "your property?" If indeed it is your property, there is no such authority except that which you voluntarily submit to. However, since you are merely a tenant paying property use tax rent on the land, they have every right to tell you how you will use that property and how far from the property line you must build any house, etc.
Can you imagine Patrick Henry putting up with such nonsense? Of course not! But then, Patrick Henry was a Freeman, not a Communist. He did not hold Communist ideas about the use of land, as most Americans do today. How about you? Are you a Communist when it comes to land use? As to the use of land, every Senator and every Congressman is a Communist today. Nothing much will change "when Communism takes over," except that you will know that you are a mere tenant and not a land owner as you had supposed for years. Some of you tenants will be pushed off the state's land so that another tenant can use your nice home and farm, and if you resist, you may be legally shot.
When the Communist agent, Woodie Guthrie, wrote the now famous song, "This Land is My Land; this Land is Your Land..." he was writing with the Communist understanding about land and land ownership. Yet patriotic groups, ignorant of Communist objectives, often sing that song with the same attitude and reverence as they do with "America, the Beautiful."
2). A Heavy Progressive, or Graduated Income Tax.
This is probably the best known of the Communist political concepts in use today in America. If there is any Communist statute or regulation that has been imposed unlawfully on most Americans, and one which affects their very lives and fortunes the most, the Communist income tax has to be it. If there was any statute that employed more "powerful levers" or "subtle webs," you would be hard pressed to find it.
As with the progressive tax on property, it is a Communist idea of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" that finds exact expression in the federal and state graduated income tax laws. Yet 90% of all Americans accept this system of federal revenue taxation as if it were both Scriptural and American. It is neither. It comes from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud, and is the main cornerstone of Communist Thought‑ theology. Marxism‑Leninism is not only a political thought, but is also the religion of the Communists and Socialists.
It is a well‑known hallmark of Communism when you see people turning in their neighbors to the authorities. It is now beginning on a large scale in America with such carefully prepared TV shows as "UNSOLVED MYSTERIES," where the TV uses brutal murders, drug and child abuse crimes to get the public accustomed to thinking about turning people in so as to solve these crimes. You can become a "state hero" and even get paid $1,000 for your help.
Next, you will be paid for TURNING IN PEOPLE WHO OWN FIREARMS OR FOR NOT TELLING OUR PEOPLE ABOUT UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES.
Even now this can be seen, when someone tells another they are un‑American, un‑patriotic, un‑Christian or the now famous remark "Love It Or Leave It" who complain about government officials who are ruining our country. Never coming to the realization that it is un‑American and un‑Christian NOT to speak out against government injustice. It was government officials who put Peter and the Apostles in prison for speaking out:
"Then the high priest [a high government official at that time and place] rose up, and all they [the other rulers of Jerusalem] that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation [because Paul and the Apostles were speaking out AGAINST GOVERNMENT INJUSTICE], And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison...Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching [once again speaking out against government injustice ‑ and about the Lord Jesus Christ] the people. Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them...before the council [their equivalent of our Congress or Supreme Court]: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name [The name of the Lord Jesus Christ]? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine...Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:17‑29)
Are you beginning to see that COMMUNISM HAS ALREADY TAKEN OVER AMERICA?
3). Abolition of all Right to Inheritance.
In spite of the federal Estate Tax of 1916 your Communist government has yet to accomplish this objective. They have imposed a heavy inheritance tax, illegally confiscating a large part of that property a man leaves to his children. So much so that after a couple of generations, the property is usually gone. How many people do you know who still live on their grandfather's farm or ranch? Naturally, the lower classes, who have chosen not to save enough to purchase property, have no inheritances to leave. The super‑rich have been provided the use of tax‑exempt foundations so that their wealth is passed on to their posterity. It is the great middle‑class that the Communist objectives are directed toward, and which are succeeding very well in America. Where does the federal government get the authority and jurisdiction to tax the property of the deceased?
4). Confiscation of the Property of Emigrants and Rebels.
Emigrants are people who leave a country, and that does not apply to Americans. However, look at what is done to Americans our government calls "rebels." All the government has to do is allege that a person is a "tax resister" or a drug pusher and his property, money and real estate can be confiscated without due process. Some of you saw the story on "Inside Edition" where a citizen's property was taken by the Federal authorities without due process merely because she had rented the house to people, later determined to have been using the house for drug traffic. All the government needs to do is allege that property, money, real estate, cars, boats, etc., are owned by those involved in drugs, and that property, can be taken and sold under Public Law 99‑570 set in place in 1986. There are some real horror stories. Some minimum wage seaman can sneak drugs aboard a million dollar ship, unknown to the owners or the captain, and the ship can be and probably will be confiscated by the government without due process of law!
5). Centralization of Credit in the hands of the State, by means of a National Bank with State Capital, and an Exclusive Monopoly.
It was through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the private banking cartel known as The Federal Reserve System came into being. It is through this scheme, with the government controlling the banks and credit for the benefit of the secret shareholders, that the effect of this objective of the Communists came into being in the United States. The super rich bankers, while they liked the controls envisioned by Karl Marx, decided that all the usury and profits should go into their pockets instead of the federal coffers. It is this small outlaw band of International Jewish Bankers who decide how much interest you are going to pay on your home mortgage and they have the monopoly power to force other banks to charge the same rates.
Individual credit can be given or withheld at the whim of these bankers. The "private" FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM is neither "federal" nor does it have any "reserves" as commonly believed. The local Federal Reserve Bank is not listed under agencies of the Federal Government, but it is listed as a private business.
The Federal Reserve "Notes," which you carry in your pocket, though printed by the federal government for these private bankers's use, and identified as "legal tender," are in fact privately circulated bank notes. As "notes" they do not certify that the U.S. Treasury has gold of silver to "back them" but state on their face that the U.S. Government is in debt to that amount.
You are not paying your bills with certificates of wealth, but with evidences of federal debt. You are passing the U.S. debt to the bankers, around, among yourselves as if it was lawful money. The "private" Federal Reserve makes huge profits for its member banks, and yet it pays no federal or state income taxes, and they have "never" been audited by any government agency.
A few years ago, Senator Metcalf of Washington State launched a campaign against the Federal Reserve and had it put on the ballot to restore the right to create money to the Congress as specified in the Constitution. The people in Washington State were so thoroughly indoctrinated by our prostitute news media, that they actually voted it down!
In 1933, when so many banks lost their shirts and had to repay their depositors or close their doors, the Federal Reserve Act was changed to incorporate the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Here is how this works, and we can see it with the current Savings and Loan scandals. In good times, the bankers make huge profits.
However, in bad times, the American taxpayers are called upon to bail out the bankers, letting them retain their personal assets. But, most people are so accustomed to the yoke of Communism, thrust upon them in the name of "democracy" and "social security," that they believe that these things must be the form of government our Forefathers gave us.
They think it is normal to have total taxes amount to over 50% of their income. Where is their Great Republic based upon the Common Law and the Constitution? For all practical purposes, it no longer exists.
6). Centralization of the means of Communication, and Transportation in the hands of the State.
All radio and television networks are licensed and permitted to operate "only" at the pleasure of the federal government through the Federal Communications Commission. Because their program-ming is under strict federal guidelines, anti‑Communist programs are rarely aired. Can you recall one TV program, in the past 20‑25 years which set forth the Communist objectives for the conquest of America and the World? Instead, all programming is designed to promote Socialist/Communist thinking, and our country is never referred to as a republic but always as a democracy.
All news is designed to promote the Communists and their leading individuals as reasonable people, and anti‑Communist nations, such as South Africa, are always cast in an unfavorable light. Communist objectives for America, such as degeneration of moral values, interracial marriage, promiscuous sex, and homosexual life styles, are treated in both the news and the "situation comedies" as normal and healthy, and are given to us and our children on a daily basis.
All transportation by air is under either the Federal Aviation Agency or the Civil Aeronautics, and the government controls how these private businesses operate and the fares and rates that they can charge. The federal government controls every form of interstate commerce, and sets the rates that these private businesses can charge and even how long a truck driver can drive his own truck in a given day.
7). Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State; the bringing in Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil according to a common plan.
The federal government now owns and operates more than 25,000 corporate units in direct competition with private enterprise. Most of these corporations are operated at staggering losses, even though they pay no property taxes and no interest on invested capital. All of these, along with their losses, are being operated without the slightest shred of Constitutional authority. Furthermore, according to figures taken from the Federal Budget, the aggregate losses of these federally owned businesses and property, including the lost state and local taxes thereon, exceed the total amount collected each year in personal income taxes! According to the Liberty Amendment Committee, from whom these statistics were taken, the sale of these unlawfully owned businesses would retire about one third of the national debt, and make the personal individual income taxes a thing of the past.
We are 100% in favor of bringing wastelands into cultivation and improving the soil. However, this must be done on a private enterprise basis, and not as the result of federal bureaucratic intervention. However, in accordance to the Communist orientation of our government, swarms of New Officers (to use the language of the Declaration of Independence) have been descending upon our farmers. There is the Bureau o Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, Environmental Protection Agency, and many others. We do not need to comment on the crisis now being faced by America's independent farmers. It is not the result of incompetent farmers but because of federal meddling in both their agricultural and financial affairs.
8). Equal Liability of all to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, especially in Agriculture.
In the first sentence, the emphasis should be on the word, liability. This is to be a "worker's paradise" and therefore all have an equal liability, a pecuniary obligation, to labor. Every citizen, according to Marx, is required to labor, and ever person is to be assigned a job. There is to be no non‑laboring middle class working as salesmen and shop‑keepers. Once the farmers finally fail in large numbers [and it appears that is exactly what is happening today 1992], not because of agriculture flaws so much as corporate debt, the Communist agriculture armies, gathered from those "huddled masses yearning to be free," that now clog up the welfare rolls, will be sent forth to plant, till and harvest in the vain hope that they can feed the people.
9). Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction between Town and Country by a more equitable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
The destruction of the cities has been going on since the Roosevelt Depression. Social�ist/Communist confiscatory property and business taxes on producer, and welfare handouts to non‑ producers, have driven commerce and industry out of the cities and provides the excuse for federal control of land use, environmental impact studies, and regional planning. Federal regional planning is done between states and over state lines, is the way this Marxist plank is being carried out today.
10). Free Education of all Children in Public Schools, and combination of Education with Industrial Production.
When Karl Marx wrote "free" he meant compulsory education of the children under the control of the State. Because of the contract with the State known as the "Marriage License," your children are legally Wards of the State. They must have "shots" and a Social Security number "required to protect the State's wards." State run and tax financed government schools began soon after the publishing of the Communist Manifesto, with the key leader at that time being Horace Mann. Next came Socialized/Communist or often called "progressive" education under the guidance of John Dewey. Do you remember having to read about the wonders of Socialism/Communism in books by Lincoln Stephens in high school? The most Socialist/Communist class in any high school is not history or social science but English, where the leftist teacher can direct the children to read certain books and make reports on them.
English is the only required class for all students, and it is there that the Communists have directed their most attention. Under Biblical law, early American instruction, where students were studying Greek and Latin by 9 years of age, has always been the responsibility of the parents and their church assembly. Children were taught the moral values of the parents and of their church. Today, it is the State that determines what the standards will be for the children's education. Federal Aid to Education determines how the States will set up the basic teachings and philosophy and this exactly what Marx had in mind. This form of education teaches the child to look to the State for help, and the State becomes the child's "god."
Christian instruction, in contrast, teaches the child to look to God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and that if he needs a hand he finds one at the end of his arm. As you look at our youth educated in government schools, observe their appearance and their attitudes, and remember that crime and drug use is increasing 7X as fast as the population, you will see the evil genius of Karl Marx in full bloom.
There is a clear distinction between "instruction" and "education." And that is humanistic, New Age, and Eastern philosophy that man is intrinsically good. Hence the use of the word "education" by the modern Socialist/Communist, which means from the Latin, "draw the good out." In contrast, the Bible teaches that all men are sinners, and that they are basically of a sinful, wicked nature. Thus, there is no way to "draw good out" of them. Christian philosophy, based upon the Truth of the Bible, teaches that children are to be instructed, that is have the good of God's Laws put into them so that they can be pleasing in God's sight.
Today, those church groups that teach that God's Laws are still in full force and effect, always refer to their schools as Christian Instruction. Those churches who have gone the way of humanism, teaching that God's Laws, Statutes and Judgments were abandoned at the Cross, rightly call their schools "Christian Education." The term "Christian Education" is an oxymoron, an absurd contradiction in meaning to those of us with even a smattering of classical study.
As to the second part of Marx's 10th Plank, children under 16 are not permitted to work for wages. All private apprentice ships have been abolished for children seeking to learn a trade before the age of 16. Roosevelt's Socialist/Communist friends had the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1937 where apprenticeships are now under the control of the State.
J. Edgar Hoover, in his classic book on the Communist threat to America, Masters Of Deceit, wrote that his greatest fear was that Americans would become "state of mind Communists" while adamantly denying any interest or adherence to Communism. And that is exactly what has happened. Most Americans go along with every single plank of the Communist Manifesto and even supposed that it is the American Way!
Obviously, there is only one entity that has the power to do this to the people consistently, year in and year out, without answering for their crimes and atrocities. Central government is the ultimate invading enemy of a peaceful society. When central government conquers a land, the people are in total subjection ‑ and they learn to like it. They are taught that anyone who accepts his state of subjection is called a "law‑abiding citizen," and anyone who objects is called a "criminal" and is either killed, imprisoned or forced into hiding.
Americans are subject to frequent and arbitrary arrests, fines, harassment, outrageous taxation and even physical harm from the government, the IRS, or their mercenary hit men called "the police." Our forefathers called them "standing armies." Americans think it is natural and right to fear and worship central government. They think nothing of it. They take it for granted, as if there were no alternatives. They are so well enslaved that they merrily submit to government embezzlement of over one‑ third of their income, the total loss of their privacy and the loss of their freedoms.
Because as we stated earler, with the loss of the land: all freedoms are lost also! Whereas the Constitution follows the teachings of Jesus Christ who taught that principles based upon the Word of Almighty God are as valid and as sound in any age as they were in the beginning. There are a hundred different ways in which Christ's teachings have been given effect and application in the Constitution of the United States. And we have presented so far a few of them along with other documents to prove to the unbelievers that: AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION BASED UPON THE WORD OF GOD THE HOLY BIBLE AND UPON THE TEACH�INGS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
However, in the late 1850's a chain of events began to take place that would pervert our United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Constitutions and laws of the several States, and which would disenfranchise the State Legislatures as well as the States citizens, would deprive both of their sovereignty, and silently [secretly] destroy the States' powers and the United States as formed, replacing them with a new government dressed with all the appearances of the United States Government but repugnant to its institution.
In 1856 the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in Dred Scott vs. Sandford, determined absolutely, that the White persons of the States, born or naturalized therein, are the full composition of the sovereign body of this nation. This decision was brought about purposely, at this place in time, because there was a great deal of turbulence brewing about the freeing of slaves in the slave States, many of the several States already being in the process of freeing the slaves by their own sovereign power to legislate.
Many radicals of the day jumped on the band wagon and the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed, allegedly for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves, as they believed the Thirteenth Amendment would only apply to the Southern States, until it back fired on them and they discovered it would also apply to the Northern States as well. But, the Thirteenth Amendment had a much more purposeful design, which would not be revealed to the average citizen until the deception was complete. The design was to franchise non‑citizens while centralizing power in the United States Government, to the deprivation of the States and their citizens [We the People].
The bleeding hearts of the media had a hay day pleading for the alleged rights of the non‑citizens that had previously been enslaved. Thus, pressing for adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, the design of which had less to do with freeing the slaves than anything else. The people were deceived by these cries for mercy for the slaves, to such an extent that many chose up sides. Not only did the people choose sides, but the States were convinced to do the same. As a result the sovereign bodies of the United States were induced to suffer a Civil War among themselves, that killed more White United States citizens than have been killed in any war in our history. Little did the Northern States realize they were fighting a war with the hidden purpose of destroying their own sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of their White citizenry.
The Thirteenth Amendment was adopted as a result of the Civil War, even though it was proposed prior to the succession of the Southern States, and a new nation was formed, although, all believed that the same national government was merely re‑ established with slavery abolished. [For simplicity, this newly established government will hereafter be referred to as the Federal Government or the Fed].
Prior to this time all amendments, made by provision of Article V of the U.S. Constitution were for the purpose of restricting or clarifying the power of the United States Government and considering that the Preamble to the Bill of rights does an ample job of defining the purpose of the amending provisions of Article V, this is prima facia evidence that the purpose of Article V was strictly to allow the States to hold the United States Government in check as new ways and new perversions were conceived to destroy the limitations of the Constitution the principle of which was judicial misconstruction of the Constitution. (See Chisholm vs. Georgia 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1973)) Which led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment for clarification of Article III U.S. Const., and Hans vs. Louisiana 135 U.S. 1 (1890) for judicial construction of the Eleventh Amendment.
But the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment gave new power, creating the Fed, rather than restricting power to maintain the government for United States of America as formed. This grant of power is completely foreign to the intent of the Preambles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The second section of the Thirteenth Amendment opened up a despotic can of worms that are wiggling more vigorously today than ever.
Under this unconstitutional [de factor] power, State statutes and Constitutional provisions were declared void and citizens that had never been subjected to Fed., jurisdiction in their persons before, were being jailed and sued at the instance of non‑citizens under the new federal law. (See The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by Horace Edger Flack, Phd., (1965)) The radicals feared that their revolutionary acts would be declared unconstitutional, so they pressed on with proposal of the Fourteenth Amendment, under very questionable if not fraudulent conditions, to solidify this adultery of their own nation [race] and sovereignty. Again alleging, as they had in civil rights statutes, that power existed within the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment to proceed to make the Fourteenth Amendment. Adoption of the Fourteenth was then secured by military occupation of the Southern States, two years after hostilities of the Civil War had ceased.
In the words of the then president Johnson in a veto address against the reconstruction act, these rebels were imposing "a Bill of attainder against nine million" citizens of several States in the United States of America. Now you might question this statement, that the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment formed a new [de facto] government. But, we raise this question, if the United States Government had the power to legislate in matters of Black persons and State sovereignty, why was it deemed necessary to vest new power in Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by its second section? Aren't Congress' powers to legislate and enforce legislation vested by Article I? Or, did Congress know they were perverting the Constitution and dismantling our sovereignty as "one People," and that no such power existed? This first grab for sovereignty was completed with the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, which alleges to give political franchise to other than White persons. In short, the chain of events to this point were:
1). Free slaves;
2). Congress claimed the power to legislate not only to free slaves, but to confer further privileges upon those persons previously held in slavery, in violation of State Constitutions which secured the right to vote to only the male White population;
3). Congress claimed power to make their own citizens;
4). In violation of the Preamble to the Constitution, Congress claimed power to confer political franchise to those persons they claimed to confer citizenship to. This effectively disfranchised the lawful citizens [White persons born or naturalized in one of the States] and deprived the States, Northern as well as Southern, of their sovereignty to legislate on matters that had been established to be exclusively within their sovereign authority for close to a century past.
Not only did Congress pervert the Constitution with a purposeful design to do so, but gave political franchise [unlawfully] to those persons that would maintain the Feds.' de facto power. Because provision was made for a new class of citizenship, a citizenship of "persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (See Fourteenth Amendment section 1) that is jurisdiction of the Fed., Congress saw a new capability of taxation, some forty years later, in the form of an excise on this statutory privilege of [de factor] citizenship. This realization led to the proposal and adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, for the purpose of collecting the tax.
������������������������������������������������ CIVIL WAR
In the guise of the Roman Catholic Church, the Red Dragon, who was,
"...wroth with the woman {National Israel ‑‑ United States} went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which {nationally} keep the {10} commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation 12:17)
Since the Dragon was not able to destroy the "manchild nation" {America} as soon as it was born, sought to exterminate it with his secret weapon masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church.
Samuel Morse, father of electronic telegraphy, found out about the conspiracy of Rome to kill our young American Republic and published in 1834 his remarkable work, "CONSPIRACIES AGAINST THE LIBERTIES OF THE U.S." The book which revealed this bit of information on page 290, also carried this quotation:
"It is under those bloody banners {religious massacres in Europe} of 6,000 Roman Catholic priest, Jesuits and Bishops, in the United States, and marching to the conquest of this republic, backed by their seven millions of blind and obedient slaves...A political conspiracy under the cloak of a religious mission was formed against the U.S., yes, without Romanism, the last awful Civil War would have been impossible, Jeff Davis would never have dared to attack the North, had he not had assurance from the Pope, the Jesuits, the Bishops, the Priests and the whole people of the Church of Rome under the name and mask of Democracy, except they would help him." (Fifty Years In The Church of Rome, page 290, by Father Chiniquy); "THE JESUITS ARE A MILITARY ORGANIZATION, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is: POWER. Power in its most despotic exercise. Absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most enormous of abuses." (Memorial of the Captivity of Napoleon St. Helena, General Montholon, Vol. ii p. 62, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 289); "Pope Gregory VII decided it was not murder to kill excommunicated persons. This rule was incorporated in the canon law. During the revision of the code, which took place in the 16th century, and which produced a whole volume of corrections, the passage was allowed to stand. It appears in every reprint of the Corpus Juris. It has been for 700 years, and continues to be, part of the ecclesiastical law. Far from being a dead letter, it obtained a new application in the days of the Inquisition; and one of the later Popes has declared that the murder of a Protestant is so good a deed that it atones, and more than atones, for the murder of a Catholic." (The London Times July 20, 1872)
"Has the Church of Rome expressed any regret for having promulgated and executed such bloody laws? No! On the contrary, she has anathematized all those who think or say that she was wrong when she deluged the world with the blood of the millions she ordered to be slaughtered to quench her thirst for blood; she positively said that she had the right to punish those heretics by tortures and death. Those bloody and anti‑social laws, were written on the banners of the Roman Catholics, when slaughtering 100,000 Waldenses in the mountains of Piedmont, more than 50,000 defenseless men, women and children in the city of Bezieres.
�It is under the inspiration of those diabolical laws of Rome, that 75,000 Protestants were massacred the night and following week of St Bartholomew. It was to obey those bloody laws that Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nates, caused the death of half a million of men, women, and children, who perished in all the highways of France, and caused twice that number to die in the land of exile, where they had found a refuge. Those anti‑social laws, today, are written on her banners with the blood of ten millions of martyrs. It is under those bloody banners that 6,000 Roman Catholic priests, Jesuits and bishops, in the United States, are marching to the conquest of this republic, backed by their seven millions of blind and obedient slaves. Those laws, are still the ruling laws of Rome, were the main cause of the last rebellion of the Southern States.
�Yes! Without Romanism, the last awful Civil War would have been impossible. Jeff Davis would never have dared to attack the North, had he not had assurance from the Pope, that the Jesuits, the bishops, the priests and the whole people of the Church of Rome, under the name and mask of democracy, would help him. These diabolical and anti‑social laws of Rome caused a Roman Catholic to be the man chosen to fire the first gun at Fort Sumter, against the flag of Liberty, on the 12th of April, 1861. Those anti‑Christian and anti‑social laws caused the Pope of Rome to be the only crowned prince in the whole world, so depraved as to publicly shake hands with Jeff Davis, and proclaim him president of a legitimate government.
�These are the laws which led the assassins of Abraham Lincoln to the house of a rabid Roman Catholic woman, Mary Surratt, which was not only the rendezvous of the priests of Washington, but the very dwelling‑house of some of them. Those bloody and infernal laws of Rome nerved the arm of the Roman Catholic, Booth, when he slaughtered one of the noblest men God has ever given to the world. Those bloody and anti‑social laws of Rome, after having covered Europe with ruins, tears, and blood for ten centuries, have crossed the oceans to continue their work of slavery and desolation, blood and tears, ignorance and demoralization, on this continent. Under the mask and name of democracy they have raised the standard of rebellion of the South against the North, and caused more than half a million of the most heroic sons of America to fall on the fields of carnage. In the very near future, if God does not miraculously prevent it, those laws of dark deeds and blood will cause the prosperity, the rights, the education, and the liberties of this too confident nation to be buried under the mountain of smoking and bloody ruins. On the top of that mountain, Rome will raise her throne and plant her victorious banners." (The London Times p. 289‑291)
Lincoln was quoted to have said:
"We owe it to the Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noble sons. Though there were differences of opinion between the South and the North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor anyone of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the PROMISES OF THE JESUITS, that...THE MONEY and the ARMS of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, and even the arms of France were at their disposal, if they would attack us. I pity the Priests, the Bishops and the Monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are in GREAT PART RESPONSIBLE for the TEARS and BLOOD SHED in this war. I conceal what I know, for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and at once, take a tenfold more savage and bloody character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides.
�The Protestants of both the North and South would surely unite to exterminate the Priests and Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor Morse has said to me of the plots made in the very city of Rome to destroy this Republic, and if they could learn how the Priests, the Nuns, and the Monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are nothing but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our Constitution and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain and wherever there are any people who want to be free...New projects of assassination are detected almost every day, accom-panied with such savage circumstances that they bring to my memory the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the Gunpowder Plot.
�Our investigation indicates that they come from the same masters in the art of murder, the Jesuits. The New York riots were evidently a Romish plot from beginning to end. We have the proofs in hand that they were the work of Bishop Hughes and his emissaries. No doubt can remain about the bloody attempts of Rome to destroy New York, when we know the easy way it was stopped. I wrote to Bishop Hughes, telling him that the whole country would hold him responsible for it if he would not stop it at once. He then gathered the rioters around his palace, called them his 'dear friends,' invited them to go back home peacefully, and all was finished!...From the beginning of our civil war, there has been, not a secret, but a public alliance, between the Pope of Rome and Jeff Davis.
�The pope and his Jesuits have advised, supported, and directed Jeff Davis on the land, from the first gun shot at Fort Sumter by the Rabid Roman Catholic Beauregard. They are helping him on the sea by guiding and supporting the rabid Roman Catholic pirate, Semmes, on the ocean...The pope has thrown away the mask, and shown himself the public partisan and the protector of the rebellion, by taking Jeff Davis by the hand, and impudently recognizing the Southern States as a legitimate government. I have the proof in hand that that very Bishop Hughes, whom I had sent to Rome...is the very man who advised the pope to recognize the legitimacy of the Southern republic, and put the whole weight of his tiara in the balance against us in favor of our enemies! Such is the perfidity of those Jesuits." (Fifty Years In the Church of Rome, pages 297‑299)
JUDAH P. BENJAMIN, ROTHSCHILD AGENT
"Napoleon's object was to assure the predomination of the French over the Latin races and to augment the influence of these races in America. Napoleon decided to recognize the independence of the rebellious American States and repeatedly urged the British government to join him in so doing." (Mackenzie in his historical research entitled, The Nineteenth Century)
Judah P. Benjamin was chosen by the Rothschilds to do their work in the United States and he was the first adviser to Jefferson Davis, the President of the Southern Confederacy. Benjamin has been called "the brains of the revolt." He was also the Secretary of State of the Confederacy under Jeff Davis. The Confederacy consisted of eleven Southern States bound by a written Constitution, modeled in part after our own Constitution. It was founded on the fundamental principle that each one of its eleven constituted States had the right to secede from the Union, or to separate from the other 23 out of the 34 states of the Union.
Nevertheless, at the instigation of Benjamin, and under pressure of Napoleon, Texas and Louisiana were placed on the bargain counter in exchange, presumably, for Napoleon's aid. The latter was supported by Disraeli of England, who had assured the Confederacy of the support of Britain behind the nine remaining States, after Texas and Louisiana were to be ceded to France.
Under the guiding hand of Judah P. Benjamin, chosen by the Rothschilds and the Church of Rome to represent the International Bankers to do their work for them in the United States, was also the first advisor to Jefferson Davis, the President of the Southern Confederacy. Benjamin is reputed to have been the "brains of the revolt," as he was also the Secretary of State of the Confederacy. Through the hands of this man, huge sums of money were provided to finance the destruction of this great New Christian American Republic flowed.
The Confederacy fell and the men who had fought a valiant fight for what they believed right were thrown into the even greater travail of the Reconstruction; while Judah P. Benjamin, almost alone of the leaders of the South, forsook immediately the suffering people WHO HAD HONORED AND ENRICHED HIM, fled to England and was soon embarked upon a new career of distinction and wealth, REMINISCENT OF OTHERS OF HIS RACE dispossessed of their temporary cause and gains.
While we are talking of the Civil War it behooves us to mention that ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS ASSASSINATED BY JOHN WILKES BOOTH. That the plot of Booth, involved not only the assassination of Lincoln, which was accomplished, but also the assassination on the same night of the Vice President, Andrew Johnson, of the Secretary of State, William H. Seward, and of General Ulysses S. Grant. Seward, who was ill at his home, was stabbed, as was also his son, Frederick Seward, by David E. Herold, a co‑conspirator with Booth, who was hanged.
Vice President Johnson escaped injury, but George A. Atzerodt was hanged for conspiring with Booth to kill him. General Grant, who was to have attended the theater with Lincoln that night, due to an unexpected departure for Burlington, New Jersey, was unharmed.
�John Booth, A Jewish silversmith whose ancestors had been exiled from Portugal because of their radical political views. In London the refugees had continued their trade and free thinking, and John had married Wilkes' cousin. This Wilkes was the 'celebrated agitator John Wilkes of Westminster, London...John Wilkes Booth's father was Junius Brutus Booth." (The Mad Booths of Maryland)
Our American school children have been taught that the Civil War was fought over the slavery problem, but this was only a surface issue to hide the intrigue of the Great Red Dragon to foment one side against the other. After thousands of our choice White Israel sons and one of our greatest Presidents were murdered, our Great God stopped the slaughter of the Dragon ‑‑ BY THE INTERVENTION OF THE CZAR OF RUSSIA, WHO GOD SENT TO OUR NATIONAL RESCUE, BUT UNKNOWN TO MOST AMERICANS.
Our childrens' history textbooks continue to teach that the American Civil War was fought over the Slavery issue. But if we look behind the scenes we will find that the "slave question" was but the surface issue. Below the surface ran a current of intrigue that ended with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because he was determined that the United States was to be free from the bondage of the International Jewish Bankers. The part the Catholic Church through the Jesuits has already been presented. Now we will present the "Rest of The Story." In 1857, the Rothschild Illuminati bankers ruled Europe.
DIVISION OF U.S. PLOTTED IN LONDON
Disraeli, the late Prime Minister of England, determined to divide the United States and give one part to Lionel {Rothschild}. Thus the North would become a British Colony annexed to Canada. The South would go to Napoleon {Rothschild}. In the year 1857, the money power of old Europe was centered in the House of Rothschild. Disraeli represented them in England; Napoleon III in France; Bismarck in Germany and Mazzini in Italy.
According to Mr. John Reeves, who wrote on page 228, of an authorized biography entitled "The Rothschilds, The Financial Rulers of Nations," based on research in their own archives, there was a famous meeting in the City of London in 1857. The great Rothschild family was assembled from the countries of Europe for the marriage of Lionel Rothschild's daughter, Leonora, to her cousin, Alphonse, son of James Rothschild of Paris. It was at this time Disraeli is reported to have said:
"Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild, a name famous in every capital of Europe and every division of the globe. If you like, we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel. Napoleon will do exactly and all that I shall advise him."
Thus, in London, we see a plan fostered by the money power of Europe, moving in on America, and pitting the North against the South under the old principle of "divide and conquer."
Remember that the Civil War with all of its suffering, blood shed and death was calmly planned and blueprinted by the Satanic Rothschild bankers in Europe and in conjunction with their agents who control the Catholic Church from behind the scenes, in 1857. The Rothschild, Jewish, Zionist triumvirate in obedience to their Bilderberger comrades did the same with World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam.
INTERVENTION OF THE CZAR OF RUSSIA SAVED THE UNITED STATES
Disraeli and the Catholic Church had already assured the Confederacy of Britain's support. However, this was not to help the South; it was to crush both the North and the South and to conquer and possess both. As a result, English, French and Spanish troops were landed at Vera Cruz in 1862. The French General, Bazaine, occupied the capitol of Mexico at the time. So Napoleon was ready to strike and help divide and destroy the United States. The danger was great. The situation looked hopeless. Understanding the situation Lincoln spent long nights in humble prayer to Almighty God. He knew the North, alone, could not withstand such a combination. Moreover, Archduke Maximilian had been induced to accept the throne of Mexico.
But God stepped in. Fortunately God in His wisdom exposed this Satanic plot to the Christian Czar of Russia through his Ambassadors in Paris and London; who upon learning of the Rothschild ‑ Disraeli ‑ Catholic ‑ Napoleonic plot immediately dispatched a fleet of ships and men to San Francisco under the command of Admiral S. Lesowsky.
He also rushed a squadron to New York to New York under the command of Admiral A.A. Popoff. Both Admirals had orders from the Czar to be ready to fight any power {nation} on earth, and TO TAKE THEIR ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN; AND HIM ALONE. Needless to say, this quick, generous and vigorous action saved the United States from the intrigue of the International Bankers. So James Rothschild was left without Mexico and the Southern States, and Lionel could not capture the North through military measures. But the European Machevillis were determined on financial conquest, if not actual slavery. At the same time, this great and good Christian Czar, who, as the servant of Almighty God and by His Power, saved the United States, lovingly and voluntarily emancipated 47 million serfs on September 19, 1861, and TRANSLATED THE ENTIRE BIBLE into the Russian language.
For his courageous and benevolent acts, he was murdered by the Atheistic, God‑hating, one‑world, bankers in 1881. He was another casualty in the conflict of the ages. The conflict between right and wrong, light and darkness, good and evil, Christ and anti‑Christ, God and Satan. The same devils murdered Lincoln on April 4, 1865. The history books lie about why Booth killed Lincoln. Coded messages in Booth's trunk and the key to these codes in Judah P. Benjamin's possession proved that Lincoln WAS MURDERED BY ORDERS FROM THE JEWISH ROTHSCHILD BANKERS. Their successors are still doing the same today.
BOOTH'S CODE
FOUND IN BENJAMIN TRUNK
The good Czar, after several unsuccessful attempts on his life, was murdered in 1881. Lincoln was murdered in 1865, on April 4th, by an actor, John Wilkes Booth, in whose trunk was found coded messages the key to which was found in Judah P. Benjamin's possession. Benjamin escaped to England where he later died. The Czar, Alexander II, had been responsible on September 19, 1861, by imperial decree, for emancipating the Russian serfs, in number over 47‑million. Serfdom in Russia was ended by the stroke of a pen. But in the United States, it took billions of dollars and oceans of blood to free three million, not serfs, but slaves, because of an infamous plot of English and European Jewish money lords.
The Sixteenth Amendment contains the same provision granting the Fed. power as is contained in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. "We the People's" sovereignty was thus dissipated and those obtaining the sovereignty, by personal privilege legislation, were being taxed for the privilege as were corporations for exercising the privilege of incorporation. Those hidden figures that were instrumental in creation this de facto government [the Fed.], the centralization of power wasn't sufficient to meet their ends.
The reason it wasn't sufficient is because after emotional hostility had ceased, for the most part, the States still had enough power, while being free of ignorant emotional public opinion, to reverse the process that had been set in motion. The State legislatures still maintained their ability to exercise sovereignty in the Senate of the U.S. Congress and through election of the President.
One way the States could regain the sovereignty already lost was by only placing Senators to the Senate that would refuse to appropriate the money necessary to maintain the Fed. de factor authority and the Feds., acts against the sovereignty of the States and their lawful sovereign bodies, thereby choking the Fed., out of existence so the lawful United States Government could return to power. The State legislatures had this ability because they elected the Senators for Congress as provided by Article I Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof..." (Article I Sec. 3 Cl. 1 U.S. Const)
To disable the State legislatures in this area the rebels of the de facto Fed. and their hidden consorts devised the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed the defacto citizens, created by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, to elect Senators by popular vote, depriving the State Legislatures of another foothold of sovereignty.
Because not all the States would allow this latest perversion, the Seventeenth Amendment was declared a part of the Constitution on ratification of three fourths of the several States in violation of the Fifth Article of the United States Constitution, which required consent of every State that was deprived of their legislatures' suffrage in the Senate.
"...no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the senate." (Article V, U.S. Constitution)
In 1920, to further perpetuate this scheme, the rebels added a new twist to their method of attack on this once White Christian Nation. An attack which would reach into our very homes and families. Not only in violation of the Common Law and the Constitution, but also in violation of Gods Law concerning the so‑called fair sex. This new twist was the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women suffrage. Not only did this set husband and wife at odds to nullify each others' votes at the polls and cause disruption over politics in the home, [no man can serve two masters Matthew 6:24] but it created a new political franchise that would place women, exercising suffrage, in the same legal status as the non‑white, non‑citizens that had previously been politically franchised by the Fed. These rebel, usurping, manipulators understand human nature very well as they and their ancestors have already shown in past history,
1). A female is generally of a tender nature filled with compassions governed more easily by emotion that could be manipulated through the media, without this special tenderness a woman just would not be a woman;
2). They knew this would weaken the family structure by giving husband and wife the opportunity not to act as one as required by their vows; and,
3). They knew they had an emotional lever on women where their children were concerned, and because of this the woman might vote for measures that could be given the appearance of providing immediate security for their families, while further depriving the family of the oneness to act as a whole when exercising the sovereignty to govern and maintain their sovereign Common Law rights intact. Little does anyone realize that when the womens' vote is being appealed to pass legislation, that in many cases, passage of the legislation would harm their children in the unforeseen future while giving the appearance of immediate benefits, thereby breaking down the family government structure.
However, the White Males' sovereignty, in their persons, still was not completely subjected to the jurisdiction of the Fed., so in 1935 after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the artificial depression these rebel usurpers were able to create through the Federal Reserve Act, the Social Security Act was passed into law by the Fed.
Congress claimed, once more, to make such legislation under all the aforementioned de facto powers and franchises which allegedly consolidated sovereignty in the Feds., hands. All of these perversions of our Christian Nation and our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were now brought to bear upon the last vestige of the lawful sovereign body, the White Male Common Law Citizen. And an artificial depression forced or coerced the majority into signing a maritime Social Insurance Policy, (De Lovio vs. Boit 2 gall. 398, 7 Fed. case No. 3,776 (1815)) that is sign up for Social Security benefits in order that they and theirs might survive this crisis. While others probably did it because they were led to believe it was the patriotic thing to do.
By the individual signature of each White Male citizen the rebels collect most of the remaining Sovereign body of the de jure [lawful] government into the camp of the rebels. They were now, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" [the jurisdiction of the Fed.], that is subject in their person and in all their personal affairs, as were those persons previously franchised by the previous unconstitutional and totally revolutionary acts of these rebels which have perverted our nation and its government. The final major proposal these rebels made against the lawful Constitution of the United States of America was the Twenty‑ fourth Amendment which provides for the popular election of the President of the United States.
The last chance of the State Legislatures to choke the Fed. through putting a man in office that would veto appropriation for Fed. rebels ends, was dismembered. Also by popular vote of Senators and the President, every person that exercises the franchise agrees that the de facto Fed. as designed is the de jure [lawful] government for them. Can anyone doubt that the acts and omissions that can readily be seen in the last 120 years of our nations history prove a positive design and almost full completion of a plan to destroy the governments and sovereignties formed and protected under the United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and the individual States Constitutions? The plan is clear,
1). Devise means to divest the sovereign body and their State governments of their power and sovereignty;
2). Create new sovereignties and political franchises which by operation of law automatically vest all power in the central government, while totally subjecting themselves to it; and,
3). Implement the plan slowly and methodically so it can be made acceptable by means of coercive economic, political and falsely reported moral conditions, with use of the media to report the views of the rebels while depriving the lawful sovereigns access to any media by which they could report to their fellow citizens.
It is clear under these conditions;
a). The State and Local Governments are mere subdivisions of the Fed. disguised as States;
b). The 10 regions of Federal Regional Government are now exercising the power of the States with all sovereignty completely vested in the Fed;
c). "We the People" are now considered subjects of the Fed;
d). The United States, today, for the most part is the de factor Fed look‑alike disguised as the lawful government, intended by the Framers and We the People of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and We the People, (See the definitions of de facto and de jure government in the various legal dictionaries); and
e). Finally that if the lawful sovereign body did not remove themselves from this rebel jurisdiction and assert their power and sovereignty, we will be controlled by a despotism that will make the despotism of King George in the 1700's look like a benevolent dictator.
REPUBLIC AND THE RACE
The first deception and usurpation took place when Congress began authorizing statehood predicated upon state constitutions that did not follow the Common Law principle of designating one race to govern. The first examples of that were the admissions of such states as Washington, Montana and others. This was the beginning of the conversion [or should we say perversion] of our "Nation" to a socialist republic, a republic within the framework of international law. The lie put forth was, that to establish a One Race Republic [One Race Governing] was prejudicial and un‑Christian. THE PEOPLE WERE TOLD BY THEIR PREACHERS, MINISTERS, PRIESTS, EVANGELISTS AND ETC., THE BIBLICAL MANDATE TO BE "SEPARATED" WAS NO LONGER VALID. THIS WAS A DELIBERATE LIE! But that was merely the first in a whole series of alterations implemented to defeat the Common Law form of Republic; to destroy our Christian Nation and to enslave the Citizens thereof. Alteration of the Republic required three main points of attack. These were and are:
1). The "People" must be convinced that miscegenation [Race Mixing] is authorized by the Law of our Father in Heaven, and thus is condoned by the Christian Faith;
2). The "People" must be convinced to alter the constitutions of their separate states and the United States of America to coincide with this new interpretation of Christian doctrine;
3). The co‑equal character of the three branches of government must be removed and one branch must be made the "highest organ of state power;" or put another way, one branch must be given power over the other two. Of course, the People must either be persuaded that this is acceptable or kept in such a state of ignorance that they don't know they no longer have three co‑equal branches. The task of persuasion can be accomplished either through propaganda or by force of arms.
The current system has been put in place through stealth, deceit, fraud and treason. The task of "persuasion" will only become necessary when the fraud is generally discovered and the legitimacy of the system is widely challenged and denied by a significant portion of the citizenry. Up until now, the enemies of this once Christian Nation could claim that we gave our consent to all this. When it becomes obvious that we did not and the illusion can no longer be maintained, then the die will be cast and they must act to preserve themselves.
ONE RACE, ONE FAITH, ONE LAW
Fact one, to be within the framework of a Christian Common Law Republic, one race must govern [Hold the sovereignty]. Alter this fact and you must alter all other provisions of your constitutions. Alter the provisions of your constitutions, where the government is one of law [That is, one that exists by written constitution], as in our Nations case, then you alter the government itself. However, bear in mind that for this to be possible it must be preceded by a change in religion, from Christianity to a false "Judeo‑Christianity." Take for instance the Thirteenth Amendment. Its stated purpose was to end slavery in the United States. But was the Thirteenth Amendment necessary to accomplish the abolition of slavery?
With the passage of time, it has become clear ‑‑ THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT NEEDED TO END SLAVERY. ITS SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO END STATE SOVEREIGNTY. "We the People" did not have to add to the citizenry [The Black People] those of another race who were not of the "posterity." "We the People" did not have to alter our Common Law Republics to accomplish the end of slavery in America. BUT, THEN, "WE THE PEOPLE" DIDN'T PASS THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS EITHER, THE SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES DID!
Now you can begin to perceive a hidden purpose in the events that lead up to the war between the District of Columbia and the Southern States and climaxed with the alleged adoption of those amendments. Their purpose was NOT TO FREE THE BLACKS, IT WAS TO ENSLAVE US THE WHITE RACE AS WELL! Through the hidden ramifications of those Satanic, anti‑Christ measures, we the White Race have almost been placed in the exact same status that the Black Race formerly occupied in this land. South Africa and tiny Iceland are the last governments on this earth that are of, by, and for, the White Race and restrict their citizenship accordingly.
When they are gone, we will no longer have a government anywhere on this earth that even pretends to represent the White Race and we will then be a prey to all comers under the law of nations, just as blacks once were. In so far as the Fed., is concerned, we are already there. That was accomplished relative to domestic politics when "Free White" was removed from the last state constitution.
RELIGION AND LAW MUST AGREE
Secondly, you cannot alter the Laws of a Christian Nation until you alter that Nation's Christian Doctrine. A change in the nation's laws must be proceeded by a change in the nations religion, because religion is ALWAYS the SOURCE of Law! When you research the early constitutions of the several states you will find all of them established only White Males as the body politic, or, in other words; White Males only could vote and hold office; White Males only could govern. This held true since the Christian doctrine was that the head of a household is responsible for his wife and children, being their protector, their voice and their provider, insulating the family from the world at large, both in law and in fact.
Today the state says, "We have jurisdiction over your wife and children." The type of situation we are experiencing today is unheard of in a Christian Common Law Republic, but, common place in a socialist/communist republic. In a Republic where the sovereignty is predicated upon one race and one race only, miscegenation is perceived as being treasonous. Why? Because it destroys the race comprising the sovereign body, subverts the organization of the lawful government, and makes the entire reason for the existence of the Republic a nullity; a moot question if you will. Only White Males voted in our Christian Common Law Republic. The citizenship established by the organic law was exclusive! But in a socialist/communist state, anyone can vote, regardless of race, color, creed, or sex. The Fourteenth Amendment purports to establish a uniform and universal citizenship of subjects in the socialist vein.
There are three co‑equal branches of government in a Christian Common Law Republic, but, only one branch of government holds the power as "the highest organ of state power" in a socialist/communist republic. Our Saviour, The Lord Jesus Christ, said His Word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:8) His government is founded upon a perpetual law, a perpetual faith and a perpetual constitution. If we believe the Scriptures and this is true, then, how and when did Christian Doctrine change from that which established a Christian Common Law Republic to that which is required in a social�ist-communist republic? Did Our Father [God] or the Lord Jesus Christ alter His Law? Not according to Scripture!
Today preachers condone miscegenation, get licenses to preach, encourage our children to get marriage licenses, social security numbers, drivers licenses, or, in other words, the preachers tell us and our children to surrender to Baal as they themselves have done. If the preachers of this nation were teaching true Christian Doctrine instead of pagan fables and were adhering to the Christian Doctrine of our forefathers, our state constitutions would still be in the Christian Common Law Republic form.
"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12:25)
The Moffatt translation says:
"As Jesus knew what they were thinking, he said to them, Any realm divided against itself comes to ruin, any city or house divided against itself will never stand."
Smith‑Goodspeed translation states it this way:
"But he [Christ] knew what they were thinking, and he said to them, Any kingdom that is disunited is on the way to destruction, and any city or household that is disunited cannot last."
APPLICATION OF THE SOVIET PRINCIPLE
Thirdly, to prove facts one and two above, it will be necessary to examine the amending of the state constitutions since there are certain articles which, if amended, effect other articles of the same. In every state admitted to the Union prior to the war between the states, the citizenship was restricted and exclusive to the White Race.
After the war, these were amended under the compulsion of martial law to comply with the Fourteenth. The state officials were faced with the choice of enforcing the Fourteenth over the organic Law of their respective states and committing treason thereby or continuing to obey their state constitutions and face diminishment of representation in Congress. They could not lawfully act in contravention of their state constitutions and adopt the Fourteenth which was only a power contemplative within the District of Columbia and its enclaves, if at all.
Prior to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, all the state constitutions permitted only White Male Citizens to vote. After their adoption, the state constitutions were changed to permit every "citizen" of the "United States" who is a "resident" to vote. Of course, when it is known that the term "United States" as used in the Fourteenth means the District of Columbia, the complete thrust and intent with respect to the expansion of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (U.S. Constitution) becomes obvious. This proves how the state constitutions, through amendment, have removed the One Race [Nation] body politic [Government] designation. It also proves the statement that we are becoming more like the U.S.S.R. in our form of government and our order of law.
"Uniform Union citizenship is established for citizens of the USSR."; "Every citizen of a Union Republic is a citizen of the USSR." (U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. II, Art. 21, (1936)); "Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, the establish�ment of any direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race of nationality, as well as any advocacy or racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punish-able by law." (U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. X, Art. 123, Cl. 1 (1936)); "Equality of rights of citizens of the USSR, irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, government, cultural, political and other activity, is an indefeasible law." (U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. X, Art. 123, Cl. 2 (1936))
Examine the principles of "Social Structure" for a socialist/communist republic.
"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants." (U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. I, Art. 1 (1936)); "Work in the USSR is a duty and a matter of honor for every ablebodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'"; "THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED IN THE USSR IS THAT OF SOCIALISM [Communism]: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.'" (U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. I, Art. 12, (1936))
At one time the Supreme Court of the United States held the view that "New Deal," socialist-communist, legislation very similar to the Social Security Act was unconstitutional. But, the Court withdrew from this opinion in later years, after "We the People" had shown our acceptance of it by our individual signatures [In multiple millions] upon the individual contracts for SOCIAL INSURANCE. Of course, the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. embraces universal social insurance.
"Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness and disability." (U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. X, Art. 120, Cl. 1 (1936)); "This Right is ensured by the extensive development of SOCIAL INSURANCE of factory and office workers at state expense, free medical service for the working people, and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people." (U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. X, Art. 120, Cl. 2 (1936))
������������ SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF THE UNITED STATES
"The board shall perform the duties imposed upon it by this Act and shall also have the duty of studying and making recommendations as to the most effective methods of providing ECONOMIC SECURITY THROUGH SOCIAL INSUR�ANCE, and as to legislation and matters of administrative policy concerning OLD‑AGE PENSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, ACCIDENT COMPENSATION, and related subjects." (Title VII, Sec. 702, Social Security Act, August 14, 1935, Ch. 531, 49 Stat. 636)
Clearly "social insurance" is socialism/communism. Does the Supreme Court now believe that socialism is constitutional? That communism is constitutional in America? Or is it that the Supreme Court has no choice? Just what conditions could force the Supreme Court to follow the principles set out in the constitution of the U.S.S.R.? Only one answer is possible.
"We the People" have allowed our state and national constitutions to be amended to bring them within the guidelines of a socialist/communist republic. Considering the attitude of socialism communism toward Christianity and the Scriptures generally, we have abandoned the Word of God and the Christian Common Law that put His Word into practice in our society.
We have altered not only our form of Government [or at least permitted it to be done for us] but also have abandoned his [God's] Law and with it our Hereditary National Christian Faith. They are all inseparable. You can't have one without the others! What did Christ teach us on this point? Do you remember the Lord's Prayer?
"Thy Kingdom [God's government/kingdom] come, thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in Heaven."
COUNTERFEIT RELIGION
To substantiate all of the foregoing, we only have to prove one more fact, that the states individually and collectively have abandoned the Christian Common Law principle of government that represented and embodied the triune character of God. That is to say, that "We the People" have reduced, by the amending process, our state and national governments to one branch of power and have abandoned the three co-equal branch Christian principle of government. The alteration had to begin with the state constitutions, since the United States, under Article IV, Section 4 was bound to support and guarantee every state a republican form of government; which means that Congress would have to support those state constitutions that provided for a Christian Common Law Republic form of government.
The first alteration had to be to remove the constitutional distinction as to which Race would govern. This, in turn, would open the door for the socialists/communists to introduce international principles of toleration for all RACES, colors and CREEDS into our domestic scene, and of course into our domestic constitutions. Thus, through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the socialists/communists obtained the power of the vote [ballot box] to accomplish their ultimate ends.
To accommodate all creeds [which includes all non‑Christian, anti‑Christ religions] they had to change the Christian Doctrine of the nation by convincing the governing people that the Christians that founded our Christian Republics errored in their understanding of our Father's Laws as set out in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. Note how Judge Rives (Ex parte Reynolds et al, Fed. Case No. 11,720) in his decision tries to justify the fourteenth statutory article to the triune government of a State: his problem is that, under the triune form of government, he knows the county and city/town officials are not subject to obey the Fourteenth statutory article. The first fallacy that was presented as Christian Doctrine was that the coming of Christ put away the Law of the Old Testament. This fallacy, like virtually all of the "Judeo‑Christian" viewpoint, was gleaned, falsely, from the writings of Pau.
It was presented, by the anti‑Christs in our country, in various and increasing degrees as justification for disregarding the Old Testament. This PERVERSION OF SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE now unabashedly denies that the statutes, commandments and judgments of the Father ever had any relevance or validity with regard to life on earth and totally embraces the egalitarian universalist propaganda of the Jewish Talmud and its child, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM. Of course, it includes a complete disregard for the Divine Law of "kind after kind" and the injunction against placing strangers in positions of authority over us. The tolerance for government officers outside the original governing Race [nation] and for miscegenation [Race Mixing] is now sanctioned by government edict.
In a truly Christian Republic, and Christian Nation [Which America once was], the above is a bunch of hogwash, they are Jewish Fables. The words of Christ refute these delusions:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17‑18)
Has the earth passed? We are still standing on it, are we not? How do Christians figure the Old Testament is no longer valid? Are the Ten Commandments put away as well? OF COURSE NOT! HOW UTTERLY STUPID CAN OUR SO‑CALLED CHURCH LEADERS BE? Consider what an affront and crime it is against our God to place in our government one who openly states that he is not a believer in Jesus Christ or one who openly denies that Christ came in the flesh! Does it make any sense to place such as these in our legislative bodies and upon the benches in our judicial offices? Do you really believe that you can argue law and doctrine predicated upon Christian principle before these people and receive a Christian Judgment? NOT IN A PIGS EYE YOU CAN'T! Christian Law does not allow non‑Christians to hold office or sit in judgment over Christians. How can a non‑Christian wield authority in a Christian Government? IT'S UTTERLY ABSURD! IT CAN'T BE DONE!
COUNTERFEIT GOVERNMENT
How then did it come about? It is the Fourteenth Amendment that allows those who are anti‑Christ to hold office and sit in judgment in our land. Obviously, then, the Fourteenth Amendment is un‑Christian. Evil cannot proceed from good; good cannot come of that which is evil. Decide for yourself. Once the breach in Christian Common Law was accomplished [one race sovereignty] the door was opened to destroy the Christian Doctrine represented by three co‑equal branches of government, at both the state and national levels. First, the national legislators proposed the thirteenth Amendment.
The Congressional purpose as embodied in the Thirteenth Amendment was not to free the slaves, although this was the cloak with which they covered their real motives as you have already seen. So what was Congress' motive if it wasn't to abolish slavery? POWER! POWER! POWER! Congress wanted to destroy all the Christian Common Law principles of three co‑equal branches of government to bring the Executive and Judicial branches under their control and thereby consolidate all governmental power in one branch.
BUT CONGRESS HAD TO BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO AWAKEN THE CHRISTIANS WHO UNDERSTOOD THE TRIUNE GOD DOCTRINE REPRESENTED BY THREE CO‑EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, AND NOT TO AWAKEN THEM TO THE FACT THAT A SOCIALIST‑ COMMUNIST CONGRESS WAS DESTROYING CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
Sure, we still have three branches of government. But, are they co‑equal? The answer is an emphatic, NO! In reviewing the Constitution for the United States of America we find only one article that gives Congress power independent of the Executive and Judicial Branches.
"...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District [not exceeding ten Miles square] as may, by Cession of particular states, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the state in which Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock‑Yards, and other needful Buildings; ‑ And..." (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, Const. for the United States of America)
It is clearly stated, "To exercise exclusive legislation..." Here the door was opened for Congress to usurp all power and absorb it into the legislative branch. The scheme was to bring, via subterfuge and deceit, the people, the several states, and the Executive and Judicial Branches of the national government within the power delineated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, above.
Congress' first try was to bring Article IV within the purview of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Congress wanted to control the territories under the exclusive legislative power. Congress claimed that Article IV and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, were not separate, but combined, to give Congress exclusive legislative power in the territories. The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed.
In Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 19 How, 393 (1856), the Supreme Court ruled only Whites were citizens, and more significantly, that Article IV was a separate power not to be exercised under the exclusive legislation clause. (See Downs vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 1901) Slavery was not the issue in Dred Scott that caused the Civil War, instead, the restriction of Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and the attending destruction of the socialist-communist-illuminati dream [to consolidate all power in one branch of government] which promoted the International Jewish Banking interests, were the major causes.
Under Lincoln, the District of Columbia declared war on the Southern States. There was no war between the states, in actuality, only a war between the District of Columbia and the Southern States. Lincoln merely used his powers to draw troops through the Northern Governors, who should have refused to send their militias to the District of Columbia. In fact, some Governors did refuse.
Even modern history books claim that the first shot wasn't fired on a northern state, instead they claim that the first shot fired was against D.C. soil, a fort of the United States, an area subject to Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Lincoln clouded the real issue by telling the people of the Northern States that slavery was the issue.
Even today Dred Scott still holds that Congress cannot combine the powers of Article IV with the powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Dred Scott spoiled the Social�ist Communist/Illuminati scheme to convert the states back into territories under Article IV. What the Supreme Court said was that under Article IV the territories had to be governed according to the principles of the Christian Common Law. The White citizens of the territories could not be deprived of the Article III right to judicial review.
Clearly, the Dred Scott decision mandated that the Christian principles of the Common Law were to be embodied in the organic laws of the territories. The people, and those who framed the state constitutions for territories like Oregon, kept these principles in the organic law for their respective states when they obtained statehood.
The socialists/communists needed a new scheme. They needed a TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION which would not fall within the boundaries of Article IV of the Constitution for the United States of America, but one that, instead, would fall within Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The socialists-communists knew they had to expand Congress' exclusive legislative power in order to realize their plan to destroy the Christian Foundation of three co‑equal branches of government. They put the Thirteenth Amendment in place. Their only interest was in the second section.
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." (13th Am., Sec. 2 (1865))
Notice the wording "by appropriate legislation." Section two of the Thirteenth Amendment gave the socialist-communist-illuminati Congress the pretext of power they needed for expansion of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Notice that section two only expands the power of Congress, not any other branch of the national government.
Obviously, since only Congress' power was expanded, the amendment could only be effective where Congress had exclusive power in the first place; that is, within the District of Columbia and its enclaves. The Amendment was only effective in the expansion of Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which was a power exclusive to Congress and outside the reach of the other two branches.
Now that they had section two of the Thirteenth Amendment in place [remember it applies only to D.C. and its enclaves], they needed more residents under their power. The Congress next proposed, and the State legislatures ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), the purpose of which was to create new citizens for the District of Columbia. The same scenario was then followed with the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) to give the newly created citizen the vote. All three amendments have the same power clause, the effect of which is to expand Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, step by step with the same "appropriate legislation" clause. It should be noted that the first principal acts of Congress, under the power clauses of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, were civil rights acts which authorized the use of military force to enforce the socialist‑communist‑illuminati Congress' will.
You will notice that whenever there is an uprising of civil disobedience that relates to one of these amendments, like the case when Wallace refused to follow the orders of the Supreme Court related to entrance of a black student into a state college, you saw the national guard on the scene. Apparently martial law has never been lifted and this military force clause is still in effect.
Next, the federal courts, under acts of Congress, began to naturalize citizens, a function previously belonging to the state courts under prior naturalization law. All of this still didn't give Congress power over the white citizenry in America. Congress bided their time and took the next step in the scheme by bringing Senators under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, via the Seventeenth Amendment. This also was ratified by the state legislatures May, 1913. In the mean time Congress [guided and directed by the Jews] created a monentary mechanism to fuel the new machine with revenue via the Sixteenth Amendment February, 1913).
Having established a concurrent jurisdiction with the several states over prohibition, (18th Am. 1919) Congress next absorbed the women of American into the jurisdiction of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, with the Nineteenth Amendment (1920). Finally, the White Males, those who were not only of the sovereignty, but, who were the only lawful body politic, had to be brought within the power. Here the socialists-communists‑illuminati had a problem, some of the state constitutions still stood in the way.
They had to get all the several states to remove constitutional clauses that allowed only free White males to vote and hold office in state government. To do this they had to fully destroy the sovereignty of the several states in order to bring them within the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 power. Congress' attack was in earnest; they understood that this step of the plan was absolutely necessary to bring the entire nation under Congress' municipal powers.
"Fifth. THE CONSTITUTION HAS UNDOUBTLY CONFERRED ON CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO CREATE SUCH MUNICIPAL ORGANIZA�TIONS AS IT MAY DEEM BEST FOR ALL THE TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED OR NOT, to give to the inhabits as respects the local governments such degree of representation as may be conductive to the public well being, to deprive territory of representative government if it considered just to do so, and to change such local governments at discretion." (Downs vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 289 (1901))
Municipal organizations were the tools chosen by the socialists‑ communists‑illuminati: like:
1). The Federal Reserve; and,
2). The Social Security Administration with attendant regulatory bodies such as H.E.W. with additional supportive acts like the Uniform Commercial Code.
Agency [Municipal organization] after agency, all created by Congress, all created under the expanded authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, were added. With the personal income tax already in place upon created citizens, subjects and persons, these agencies absorbed more and more of the populace to fuel the socialist‑communist‑illuminati machine.
That's right, the income tax is imposed by a municipal law of the District of Columbia which became applicable outside its geographical area when Congress defrauded the White citizens of the several states into joining Social Security. Once state sovereignty was broken, municipal law became the supreme law of the land. A new territorial jurisdiction, different from that originally established by the constitution, including national areas and regions, was created and erected. When you signed up for THE NUMBER you became a piece of walking talking D.C. property and that jurisdiction travels with you wherever you might go throughout the world. When you took THE NUMBER you became one of those "persons born or naturalized in the United States [District of Columbia], and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." THE NUMBER makes you one of the "citizens of the United States [District of Columbia]" no matter where you might "reside" even if its in a state. These circumstances are identical to those embodied within the organic law of the Soviet Union.
"The Soviet of nationalities is elected by the citizens of the USSR voting by Union Republics, Autonomous Republics, Autonomous Regions, and national Areas on the basis of twenty five deputies form each Union Republic, eleven deputies from each Autonomous Republic, five deputies from each Autonomous Region, and one deputy from each National Area." (U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. III, Art. 35 (1936))
It is clear how D.C. is restructuring the nation into regions and national areas, bringing all into the power of the legislative branch! Does the NATIONAL AREA of the zip‑code bring the post office under municipal law? Does using a mailing permit [represented by permit (account) number] and a zip‑code allow the post office to open your mail? Does your state take municipal script [Federal Reserve Notes] to finance so‑called state functions? Doesn't it seem clear that so‑called state functions? Doesn't it seem clear that so‑called state government is placed under Congress' municipal control? Do you now understand how Congress made you drive 55 m.p.h., put your car through D.E.Q., and made you file federal tax forms, ALL OF WHICH WAIVE SOME OF YOUR MOST SACRED VESTED RIGHTS?!
STATES CONQUERED BY D.C.
All that remains to be proven is that the state governmental structure has been completely subjected to the power of Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. You can look at practically any state in the Union to prove this fact.
In the Original American form, the National/Federal government could not violate state sovereignty, nor could the several states invade the National/Federal sovereignty. This held true even when their jurisdictions appeared to somewhat overlap one another. The Christian Common Law principle of separation of jurisdiction continues even within the state itself. The state's jurisdiction could not invade the County and the County's jurisdiction could not invade that of the cities and towns.
Consistent with the national structure, each of the three jurisdictions within the state [i.e. state, county & cities] were replete with the same republican form of government mandated by Christian Common Law principles.
In contrast you can clearly see that the jurisdictional organization of a republic created under international law provides only one power to govern and that supreme legislative will is dominant and unrestrained. Under that system the states, cities and towns are all subject to the supreme legislative will within the central government. Under that system, there is no authority within the government that may question or challenge the validity of a legislative act. That is exactly the position which the Congress of the United States aspires to today and apparently thinks it has achieved.
QUESTION: Has the amending of the Constitutions of the respective and several states broken down the Christian Common Law structure originally intended and fundamentally embodied in the design of those several Republics?
The only way to determine if this condition exists is to examine the original constitutions for the respective states [especially those admitted prior to 1865] and make comparisons against the amendments that have been made thereto. In each and every instance you will find that it was the free White electors of the territory who drew up and ratified the proposed state constitution which was to be submitted to Congress for approval and subsequent admission. These constitutions were, without exception, styled as an act of "We the People" and the authoritative expression of THEIR will which was supreme, not that of the respective territorial legislatures. It was the People who formed these states and gave them life and no legislative will or authority was incumbent therein. Thus, it is readily evident that it is "We the [Free White] People" ourselves who ARE the respective states. All of the states admitted to the Union prior to 1865 submitted constitutions to Congress which were predicated upon the foundation of a "Free White" sovereign body.
In each and every instance the Congress of the United States of America approved those constitutions as being in compliance with the organic law of the Union. This approval was confirmation of the fact that these constitutions were in accordance with the Christian Common Law principles embodied in the constitution for the United States of America, the organic law for the nation.
The foregoing cumulative testimony as to the original basis of the constitution is attested to by multitudes of authorities in the old books. From the lowest justice of the peace to the highest judicial officers in the land, they all ring as one voice declaring the eternal foundations of the American Republic to be the triune citadel of one race, one faith and one law.
The Constitution for the United States of America was, like the constitutions for the respective states, ordained and established by conventions of the people of the several states that formed the Union. Instead of being accepted by legislative authority, both constitutions were accepted by conventions of the people. (See Article VII, Constitution for the United States of America) The Preambles to these respective constitutions specifically declare that it is "We the People" who have ordained and established the constitutions for the governments of the several states and of the Union. In these several constitutions they speak of and refer to the organization of the states and of the Union as a SOCIAL COMPACT. What do the words "social compact" mean? A basic understanding of the "social compact" formed is clearly established and related by the text and content of the citizenship provisions in these several constitutions; for without exception they specifically declare that only those of the White Race may be naturalized as Citizens of the states and become electors thereof.
PERPETUAL LAW, FAITH AND UNION
When one considers that we have a perpetual constitution and a perpetual Union, then it is, by deduction, rather apparent that the constitutions upon which these states entered the Union are also perpetual! And so is the citizenship declared therein! Obviously, the "social compact" spoken of in both, the national and the several state constitutions, is a "compact" between members of the White Race only for their own "social" well being! Were the people of the several states who included such exclusionary clauses in their constitutions merely a bunch of racists, or were they people who understood the principles behind the two forms of Republic previously mentioned, and the principles of the Holy Bible that are fundamental to a Christian Common Law Republic?
"And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 30:21)
The citizenship provisions of the several state constitutions were reflected and echoed in the first naturalization law of America.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien being a FREE WHITE PERSON, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..." (An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, March 26, 1790, Ch. 3, Sec. 1, 1 Stat. 103)
The White People of the several states understood that to admit all races to citizenship in their states would be to establish a republic under international law, not the common law. Compare the citizenship and elector provisions of these original state constitutions with the following provision of the USSR constitution:
"Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the USSR who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of RACE or nationality, sex, religion, education, domicile, social origin, property status or past activates, have the right to vote in the election of deputies, with the exception of insane persons and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose sentences include deprivation of electoral rights." (Chapter XI, Article 135, U.S.S.R. Constitution)
The difference between the two types of republics are clearly evident. However, the citizenship and elector provisions of the several states no longer read as they once did; they now emulate and copy the soviet constitution. They provide, without exception, for a universal citizenship and suffrage for every "citizen of the United States" regardless of race, color or creed.
CONGRESSIONAL FRAUD AND TREASON
Did anyone tell the people of the states that by amending their constitutions they were altering the basic order of the law for their respective states from the Christian Common Law principles to anti‑Christ International Law principles, and actually restructuring their states [republics]? Did anyone bother to tell them that they were setting aside the Christian Common Law structure and restrictions which protected the rights of the people from government encroachment in favor of an International Law and governmental structure which offered no such protections?
It must be reiterated; we are being told that the U.S.S.R. is becoming more like the United States, but, the truth of the matter seems to be the United States is becoming more like the U.S.S.R. As repulsive as this statement might seem we owe it to ourselves to take a closer look at what is happening to us in this country. Look around you! Can you deny what your eyes see? Wouldn't the altering of the state constitutions and their citizenship and elector provisions change the meaning of the "social compact" spoke of therein? By amending those respective articles didn't we enter a new "social compact," one that was NEVER contemplated by the people of the states when they adopted their respective constitutions?
If the original intent of the state constitutions has been altered then it is highly possible, and certainly likely, that other provisions of those several constitutions were also automatically altered by implication, although, not actually [directly] amended. How much more of the state constitu-tions has been altered from the Christian Common Law Republic to the International Law type of republic by this kind of subterfuge?
What about the respective state provisions for census, apportion-ment of the state and provisions for census, apportionment of the state and federal legislators, and election of the state officials? Just what law is now being faithfully executed by the state officials and the respective Governors? In all the state constitutions the Governor is commander of the military forces of the state and these may be called out to execute the laws and suppress rebellion as well as repel invasion. Just what law is it that is now going to be executed? The answer is rather obvious I would say!
According to the changes we have just discussed, the Governor is required to faithfully enforce those provisions of the state law which are equivalent to the laws of the U.S.S.R. He has the authority to do this by calling forth troops of the supreme SOVIET [the District of Columbia if you will] or their domestic equivalent! He no longer has any troops at his disposal that are under state authority. The Governors of the several states no longer command a state militia. They are totally dependent upon the militia of the District of Columbia [previously known as the armed forces of the United States].
TREACHERY OF LAWYERS
The ramifications of these alterations to the state constitutions reach into every facet of governmental structure and operation. In all the original state constitutions, the judicial power of the state was vested in a supreme court, circuit courts, and county court, which were to be COURTS OF RECORD, HAVING GENERAL JURISDICTION, TO BE DEFINED, LIMITED, AND REGULATED BY LAW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONS.
Justices of the peace were also vested with limited judicial powers, and municipal courts were created to administer the regulations of incorporated towns and cities. These courts were characterized by the following points: [Note the difference between an incorporated town and a town incorporated: the former does not mean to the State].
1). Courts:
A). Supreme Court:
B). Circuits Courts;
C). County Courts;
2). Courts of record;
3). Having general jurisdiction:
A). Defined;
B). Limited;
C). Regulated by law in accordance with constitution;
4). Justice of the Peace:
A). Also vested with judicial power;
B). Also limited;
5). Municipal courts:
A). Created to administer regulations;
B). For incorporated cities and towns;
The state constitutions as now amended still provides that the judicial power of the state shall be vested in one supreme court and in such other courts as were from time to time created by law. The judges of the supreme and other courts are still elected by the "legal voters" of the state or of their respective districts for a term of years, and still receive such compensation as is provided by law. Almost always there is also a provision which states that such compensation can not be diminished during the term for which those judges are elected. However, there is something missing! The state constitutions, as now amended for the most part, don't list:
1). Circuit Courts;
2). County Courts;
3). Courts having general jurisdiction:
A). To be defined;
B). Limited; or,
C). Regulated by law in accordance with constitution;
2). Justice of the Peace Courts; or,
3). Municipal Courts.
What does the deletion of this language mean? In simple terms, such omissions leave the whole jurisdiction that previously belonged to the inferior courts to the Supreme Court and to the whim of the legislature of the state to determine whether the Supreme Court will be allowed to exercise that jurisdiction. In other words, the judicial branch of state government is now completely subject to the will of the legislature thereof and has been subverted from its intended purpose and function. It can no longer act as a check and balance against legislative usurpations.
The founders of the state constitutions knew and understood that a Republic, founded to enforce the principles of the Christian Common Law, required three co‑equal branches of government. Over and over again they stated this principle simply and clearly within the several constitutions that the people of the respective states adopted. So important was this proposition to the framers of the various state constitutions, that they provided entire articles to assert it.
The amendments used to subvert the judicial power in the respective state constitutions completed the conversion of the state republics from the Christian Common Law form to the Interna-tional Socialist/Communist/Illuminati form in direct violation of the intentions of the framers set out in original judicial articles adopted when these states were admitted into the Union.
STATES AS TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF REPUBLIC
Original Constitution ‑‑ Christian Common Law:
Three co‑equal branches of government;
Separation of power, legislative, judicial, executive;
In all the states, the judicial branch was bound by the original state constitution rather than the legislative branch. This assured the judicial branch power and constitutional capacity of declaring acts of the legislative branch unconstitutional, void and of no effect.
Amended Constitution ‑‑ International Law:
One branch [the legislative] all powerful which in effect makes the government of The United States a one branch government; With the other two branches subservient to the legislature, no separation of powers; Under the amended constitution the administration of government conforms to that of a socialist‑ communist‑illuminati International Law republic; the judicial branch, just like the U.S.S.R. Constitution, has no real power to declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional.
LEGISLATIVE BETRAYAL
If you have ever wondered why it is never reported that a circuit or district court of one of the states has declared an act of the state legislature unconstitutional, you now know the reason why. Those courts in particular have no such power under the one branch [soviet style] system. If this is true then the evidence can be found in the restructuring of the state governments. Since it is the constitution that determines the structure of the state government in the first place, then the evidence of restructuring will appear in amendments to that basic structural law. If your state is now, by amending of the state constitution, a socialist‑communist‑illuminati republic, then the actual structure of government in your state will be found in compliance with that new form and all that it requires.
To make your state a socialist‑communist‑illuminati republic certain structural elements must have been altered. THE SEPARATION OF JURISDICTIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF STATE, COUNTIES, CITIES & TOWNS MUST BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER ONE AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION. The judicial power must be placed under the control of the legislative branch, which has clearly been done in virtually all the states. By obtaining control of the judicial power the legislative branch also gains control of the executive branch. When the judicial branch enforces the acts of the legislative branch the executive branch is required to enforce the enactments of the legislature as well.
If members of the executive branch fail to enforce the legislative enactments sanctioned by the judicial branch they would be subject to charges of misconduct and malfeasance which the judicial branch would try, and which would undoubtedly result in conviction of the offending member of the executive. This leaves the legislative branch virtually unopposed when it enacts legislation to destroy the jurisdictions of the counties, cities & towns or even the individual unalienable and inalienable rights of the people themselves. So, in this fashion and by these means, the state republics are being restructured to comply with the requirements and characteristics of International Law.
SHERIFF
The Sheriff is an elected law officer and is the only legalized law enforcing agent in the County. The citizens of the county are his legal helpers or his POSSE, and are to be called to his aid whenever necessary. When called as such, they are known as the "POSSE COMITATUS" which means "the whole power of the Country." All other law agencies do not have such authority as they are agents of some governing body representing an authority already delegated to them by "WE THE PEOPLE" and they may not exceed the bounds of the governing agency they represent. But this is not so with the county Sheriff. The Sheriff is the supreme law enforcing agent of "WE THE PEOPLE."
In the case of People vs. Keeler, 36 S.Ct. N.Y. (29 Hun) 175, we find:
"The Constitution does not permit the legislature to take away the power and duties of such an officer (Sheriff) and give them to another...and further, A law, therefore, which vests in the superintendent of a penitentiary the powers and duties of jailor of the count (for example), in which that institution is situated, infringes the common law and constitutional rights of the sheriff of that county, who is ex‑officio the jailor, and is unconstitutional and void."
Another case was reported as saying:
"It is competent for the state legislature to impose new duties upon the sheriff growing out of public policy or convenience, but it cannot strip him of his time‑honored and common law function."
It is your Sheriff who must protect your Common Law Rights and your Constitutional Rights or be removed from office. It is your Sheriff who must be as such as knows the law and is willing to obey it. He should know the origin of the United States, the Christian Common Law, the original charters, contracts, and compacts or Constitutional Laws or he should not be elected or appointed to the position of Sheriff. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares your right to speak out against abusive public servants. The Second Amendment declares your right to defend yourself against abusive public servants.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments declares your right to take action to uphold the law if abusive public servants attempt to deprive you of your legal and religious rights and refuse or neglect to uphold them. They are not allowed to exceed their delegated authority given them by "WE THE PEOPLE." IT IS THE RIGHT, DUTY, AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SHERIFF TO PROTECT ALL YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! State ex Rel Thompson vs. Reichman, 135 Tenn. 653, 685, 188 SW 225, 597 Ann Cas 1918 B 889, explains:
"It has been expressly held in some jurisdictions that the duty of the sheriff in the enforcement of the law against public offenses implies initiative on his part. HE MUST BE REASONABLY ALERT WITH RESPECT TO POSSIBLE VIOLA�TIONS OF THE LAW AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO WAIT UNTIL THEY COME TO HIS PERSONAL ATTENTION AND KNOWLEDGE, BUT MUST FOLLOW UP INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ANY SOURCE."
The Sheriff is not only the top law‑enforcement officer in your County, but according to Blackstone's Commentaries in (1 Bla. Com. 389):
"The Sheriff may hold court, summon a jury and execute writs, etc. The Sheriff's jury would be a Common Law Jury as already described, when acting as a judicial officer."
Concerning the use of the POSSE COMITATUS by the Sheriff you will find in the section of Corpus Jurus Secondum relating to the Sheriff and constables the reference to the Posse Comitatus as follows:
"In a proper case a sheriff may summon to his aid, in the enforcement of the law and preservation of the peace, the 'Posse Comitatus,' or the whole power of the County, and persons so called by the Sheriff are bound to aid and assist him."
In the case of Eaton vs. Bernalillo County, N.M. 128 p. 2d 738, 46 N.M. 142 A.L.R. 647 Proclaimed:
"The right of the sheriff to summon a posse comitatus EXISTS BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMON LAW."
As established by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, all power resides in the people, and if their representation, or the sheriff, does not uphold the law, which is the Constitution of the United States, then it is the duty of the people themselves to do what the representation or the sheriff refuses to do or neglects to do to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to summon their own Posse Comitatus, and enforce the Constitution against all violators.
If we the people come into knowledge of crimes committed against the Constitution of these United States, our Christian Common Law and each other it is not only our responsibility but our duty to report them officially to the sheriff, and if he is derelict in his duty, if he does not or will not investigate such reports and if he will not or does not prepare to take action officially against the offenders, then it becomes the right, duty and responsibility of the people themselves to handle the matter. It also become the right, duty, and responsibility of the people to punish politicians, judges, and other of responsibility when they are found to be in violation of their oath of office to UPHOLD and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America when their legally elected law enforcing agency does not or will not take corrective action.
Some instances of record provide for the following prosecution of officials of government who are convicted of committing criminal acts or who violate their oath of office:
"He shall be removed by the Posse to the most populated intersection of streets in the township and at high noon there be strung by the neck, the body remaining until sundown as an example to those who would subvert the law."
The laws of our nation provide for the death penalty for any public official convicted of violating his oath of office. He is to be tried for TREASON because this gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the Cities, Counties, States and the United States of America.
Posse Comitatus can be found in 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 343, and in Cokes Institutes Cokes 2d Institute 193, Cokes 3rd Inst. 161, and Cokes 2nd Inst. 454. Other Cases: Johnson's N.Y. Reports; 10 Johns 85; 2 Jones N.C. 339; 12 Jurist 1052; WINST. 144; 20 Ga. 598; 34 Vt. 69; 5 Tex. App. 60; 5 Whart. 437; Hamm. N.P. 63; 2 Mod. 244; 78 Me. 373; 19 Am. Dec. 122.
Having been dispossessed of our original Theocratic Constitutional Republic by alien forces dispossessed to force "WE THE PEOPLE" of the United States into an International totalitarian despotic One‑World‑Government [New World Order], we must bring this to the attention of our Sheriffs. If he refuses to investigate the complaint or notice, or exercise the sheriff's common law power to hold court and try the offenders, the duty and right reverts to the people who then must impanel their own Citizen's Grand Jury, try the offenders and carry out the sentence via Posse Comitatus Action.
Have the county courts and the circuit courts in your state been abolished and state courts established in their place? Has your county clerk's office been abolished and replaced by a state office called by the same name? Has your county sheriff been neutralized by having his authority controlled by the state instead of the county? Is your county sheriff now found solely under the executive branch functions instead of the judicial or has all mention of the county sheriff simply been deleted from your present state constitution? Now you know why such actions were taken. It is an effort to remove the power of the Common Law from the Sheriffs and "WE THE PEOPLE."
LAWYERS ARE ENEMIES OF LIBERTY
All of this is being done in many states under the alleged mandate of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The states cannot establish legislative courts within the counties without the support of some external authority. They do not possess the intrinsic power of and by themselves. They must therefore claim a mandate in the Fourteenth to justify their subversive acts. When confronted with their acts they will respond that it was necessary in order to assure all those citizens of D.C. [re: Social Security participants] the measure of "due process" to which they are entitled. Upon that pretext the lawyers are overthrowing our form of government. In most of the original state constitutions the county sheriff was provided for under both the judicial and the executive functions of the state government. Why did the Founding Fathers of the several states find it necessary to place such emphasis upon the office of sheriff?
ANSWER: Because the county sheriff under the state's Christian Common Law Republic is the highest law enforcement official. He had both executive� and judicial functions for the state. The office of sheriff served process for both the executive branch of the state government [including the administrative] and the judicial branch whose authority was derived from, and executed at, the county level.
The office of sheriff authorization is in the constitution. Under most of the original state constitutions there could be no state troopers or executive level [legislatively controlled] law enforcement. The county sheriff's duties were to enforce the law of the country [power of the county]. The county was a separate political unit which had rights of self determination which superseded enactments of the legislative assembly. For instance, say the legislators of a state passed a personal income tax bill, and the executive branch began to enforce the enactment against you because you refused to obey the legislative enactment.
The executive branch [the Attorney General's office and Department of Justice] would issue charges [a complaint] against you and the county sheriff, being subject to the executive under provisions of the state constitution, would serve the process on you. You, in turn, would file counter charges in a court which had full judicial power to hear allegations regarding the unconstitutionality of the legislative enactment. Your allegations would attack the constitutional validity intended to be enforced by the complaint, and asserting that the Legislative Assembly had violated the state constitution.
"SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." (Article 1, Section 9, Texas Constitution (1876))
The above provisions are found in every state constitution as well as the federal one and, if enforceable, would nullify all attempts at assessing and collecting a personal income tax. The personal income tax act is unconstitutional because by requiring you to file the tax return form it invades your vested and protected right to be secure in your person, houses, papers & affects. By requiring the filing of such tax forms the legislative assemblies are obviously violating the provisions quoted above. Rights are absolute, government powers are conditional. Where the exercise of conditional governmental powers violate absolute rights, the enactment is unconstitutional, null and void. What condition must governmental power meet to be legitimately exercised? the exercise of power must uphold absolute rights, and never can that power be used for a contrary purpose.
In a Christian Common Law Republic, while the Legislative Assembly has the power to pass tax legislation, they are precluded from taxing a vested unalienable or inalienable right nor can they impose taxation in such a way as to supersede other restrictions laid on them by the Bill of Rights in the respective state constitutions. The courts holding the judicial power, in a Christian Common Law form of Republic, have the power to protect the citizen from an unconstitutional enactment such as the income tax statute, by refusing to regard it as law.
Those courts listed must act in accordance with the constitution that created them and gave them life. In all the states admitted prior to 1865, when the state constitution was adopted it included all the protections afforded by its Bill of Rights (Article I); and the circuit, and county courts had Christian Common Law Jurisdiction and the necessary judicial power to enforce the Christian Common Law maxims embodied in that Bill of Rights.
Removing the Christian Common Law powers from those courts, by amending the state constitutions, left the courts without the necessary power to enforce the provisions in the respective State Bill of Rights; provisions which were originally adopted by the people for protection from the very government they were creating. The key words that were necessary to give the courts the Christian Common Law Jurisdiction, i.e., the power to protect us from government usurpations, have been removed from all the constitutions of the several states, or nearly so. Maybe this explains why the respective states tout themselves as the home of the free, as long as you get a license [i.e. permission to be free]!
CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
Hasn't the amending of your state constitution reduced the sheriff to an administrative official of the state, subject only to the executive of the state, which in turn is subject only to the legislative branch? Although it may not appear so on the surface, as you have seen, the separation of powers for all intents and purposes in completely broken down; and the respective state republics are now within the definitive boundaries of socialist international law. Today the governments of the several states have only one effective branch, the legislative branch. All power in the state governments now effectively rests in that one branch just the same as it does in the U.S.S.R. under its socialist‑ communist‑illuminati constitution.
By the amending of the state constitutions, the states, in both fact and law, have become socialist‑communist‑illuminati republics, and the people are left powerless to bring the legislative power over them into check under their current constitutions. Our national government is called by the name United States of America, but it would be much more factual if it where called the United Socialist States of America. Americans have been informed throughout their lives that our national government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
When the people of the several states of the Union set aside the Christian Common Law for anti‑Christ socialism‑communism‑ illuminati and accordingly altered their several republics to conform, the United States government followed the people and reorganized itself too. To comply with the people's alleged wishes, Congress expanded their own exclusive legislative power, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution for the United States of America. With the consent of the state legislatures, the judicial and executive branches of the national government were also brought under control of the legislative power, as were the several state legislatures themselves. This was accomplished by the state legislatures, not the people of the states mind you, through their alleged ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The structure developed by these amendments conforms to the structure of a socialist‑communist‑illuminati republic. Not one of these amendments was passed by conventions of the people of the several states in the Union, like the original Constitution for the United States of America was in 1787. The citizens of the several states were misled as to the real reason for altering their own state constitutions. The citizens of the several states were told, by their state legislators, among others, that the only reason for ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was to end racial discrimination in America, which is utterly untrue.
The Thirteenth and later amendments are merely the vehicle used to dupe the people into taking a ride in a vehicle that eventually required them to leave the road of the Christian Common Law by taking the off ramp leading to international law under the doctrine of socialism‑communism‑illuminism. The real problem is that nobody put up any signs to tell them where they were going. Neither the state or U.S. officials told the truth about the impact of adding to the citizenry, that adding non‑whites to the citizenry would alter the nature of the republics established in the several states. In fact, state and national officials have branded anyone who would bring the truth of the matter up a "racist" to cover up their previous deceptions with yet another false allegation.
���������������������������������� IMPOSITION OF SLAVERY
In the Midrash Rabbah, a rabbinical commentary, there is a prediction one day all gentiles will be slaves of Jews. (Soncino edition, section Ecclesiastes, p. 58) In the British West Indies much of the early capital to finance White Slavery came from Sephardic Jews from Holland. They provided credit, machinery and shipping facilities. In the 1630s Dutch Jews had been deeply involved in the enslavement of the Irish, financing their transport to slave plantations in the tropics.
By the 1660s, this combination of Zionist finance and White Slave labor made the British island colony of Barbados the richest in the empire. The island's value, in terms of trade and capital exceeded that of all other British colonies combined. (The British Empire in America, John Oldmixon, Vol. 2, p. 186) Of the fact that the wealth of Barbados was founded on the backs of White Slave labor there can be no doubt. White Slave laborers from Britain and Ireland were the mainstay of the sugar colony. Until the mid‑1640s there were almost no Blacks in Barbados.
George Downing wrote to John Winthrop, the colonial governor of Massachusetts in 1645, that planters who wanted to make a fortune in the British West Indies must procure White Slave labor "out of England" if they wanted to succeed. (Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, Elizabeth Donnan, pp. 125‑126) From their experience with rebellious Irish slaves, Dutch Jews would eventually be instrumental in the switch from White to Black slavery in the British West Indies.
Blacks were more docile, and more profitable. The English traffic in slaves in the first half of the seventeenth century was solely in White slaves. The English had no slave base in West Africa, as did the Dutch Sephardim who were not only bankers and shipping magnates but slavemasters and plantation owners themselves. Jews were forbidden by English law to own White Protestant slaves, although in practice this was not uniformly enforced, Irish slaves were allowed to the Jewish slavers but were regarded by them as intractable. Hence certain Jews became prime movers behind the African slave trade and the importation of negro slaves into the New World. (An Historical Account of the Rise and Growth of the British West Indies, Dalby Thomas, pp. 36‑37; The Role of the Sephardic Jews in the British Caribbean Area in the Seventeenth Century, G. Merrill; Caribbean Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 [1964‑65]; 32‑49) White Slavery was the historic base upon which negro slavery was constructed.
"...the important structures, labor ideologies and social relations necessary for slavery already had been established within indentured servitude...White Servitude...in many ways came remarkably close to the 'ideal type' of chattel slavery which later became associated with the African experience." (White Servitude, Hilary McD. Beckles, pp. 6‑7, 71)
And:
"The practice developed and tolerated in the kidnapping of Whites laid the foundation for the kidnapping of Negroes." (From Columbus to Castro, Eric Williams, p. 103)
The official papers of the White Slave trade refer to adult White Slaves as "freight" and White Child Slaves were termed "half‑ freight." Like any other commodity on the shipping inventories, WHITE HUMAN BEINGS WERE SEEN STRICTLY IN TERMS OF MARKET ECONOMICS BY MERCHANTS.
The American colonies prospered through the use of White Slaves which Virginia planter John Pory declared in 1619 were "our principal wealth."
"The White Servant, a semi‑slave, was more important in the 17th century than even the negro slave, in respect IN BOTH NUMBERS and economic significance." (Laboring and Dependent Classes in Colonial America, Marcus W. Jernegan, p. 45)
Where Establishment history books or films touch on White Slavery it is referred to with the deceptively mild‑sounding title of "indentured servitude," The implication being that the Enslavement of Whites was not as terrible or all- encompassing as Negro "SLAVERY" but constituted instead a more benign bondage, that of "SERVITUDE."
Yet the terms servant and slave were often used interchangeably to refer to people whose status was clearly that of permanent, lifetime enslavement. "An Account of the English Sugar Plantations" in the British Museum (Stowe Manuscripte 324, f. 6) written circa 1660‑1685 refers to Black and White Slaves as
"servants...the Colonyes were plentifully supplied with Negro and Christian {White} servants which are the nerves and sinews of a plantacon..." (Christian was a euphemism for White)...In the North American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries and subsequently in the United States, servant was the usual designation for a slave." (Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p. 2,739)
The use of the word servant to describe a slave would have been very prevalent among a Bible‑literate people like colonial Americans.
In all English translations of the Bible available at the time, from Wycliffe's to the 1611 King James version, the word slave as it appeared in the original Biblical languages was translated as servant. For example, the King James Version of Genesis 9:25 is rendered:
"Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be."
The intended meaning here is clearly that of slave and there is little doubt that in the mind of early Americans the word servant was synonymous with slave. (cf. Genesis 9:25 in the New International Version Bible) In original documents of the White merchants who transported negroes from Africa the Blacks were called servants:
"...one notes that the Company of Royal Adventurers referred to their cargo as 'egers,' 'Negro‑Servants,' 'Servants...from Africa..." (Handlin, p. 205)
Oscar Handlin, Professor of History at Harvard University, debunks the propaganda that slavery was strictly a racist operation, part of a conspiracy of White Supremacy. Prof. Handlin points to the facts that:
1). Whites as well as Blacks were enslaved.
2). In the 17th century slaves of both races were called servants.
3). The colonial merchants of 17th century America had no qualms about enslaving their own White kindred:
"Through the first three‑quarters of the 17th century, the Negroes, even in the South, were not numerous...They came into a society in which a large part of the (White) population was to some degree unfree...The Negroes lack of freedom was not unusual. These (Black) newcomers, like so many others, were accepted, bought and held, as kinds of servants...It was in this sense that Negro servants were sometimes called slaves ...For that matter, it also applied to White Englishmen...in New England and New York too there had early been an intense desire for cheap unfree hands, for 'bond slavery, villeinage of Captivity,' whether it be White, Negro or Indian..." (Handlin, pp. 202‑204, 218)
A survey of the various ad hoc codes and regulations devised in the 17th century for the governing of those in bondage reveals no special category for Black slaves. (Hening, Vol. 1, pp. 226, 258, 540)
"During Ligon's time in Barbados (1647‑1650), White indentured female servants worked in the field gangs alongside the small but rapidly growing number of enslaved black women. In this formative stage of the Sugar Revolution, planters did not attempt to formulate a division of labor along racial lines. White indentured servants...were not perceived by their masters as worthy of special treatment in the labor regime." (Natural Rebels, Beckles, p. 29)
The contemporary academic consensus on slavery in America represents history by retroactive fiat, decreeing that conclusions about the entire epoch fit the characterizations of its final stage, the 19th century Southern plantation system.
Prof. Handlin informs us that legislators in Virginia sought to cover‑up the record of White bondage and its equivalence to negro servitude:
"The compiler of the Virginia laws (codifying Black slavery for the first time) then takes the liberty of altering texts to bring earlier legislation into line with his own new notions." (Handlin, p. 216)
For Examples of alteratings to insert the word slave as a reference to Blacks in Virginia when it had not been used to describe them that way before. (see Hening, Vol. 2, pp. iii, 170, 283, 490)� What was later lawmakers sought to cover‑up? The fact that the White ruling class of Colonial America had cast their own White People into the same condition as the Blacks, or even worse. Richard Ligon's eyewitness report of a White Slave revolt in Barbados in 1649 has been consistently referred down through the years as a rebellion of Negro Slaves by at least a dozen later historians such as Poyer, Oldmixon, Schomburgh et al. In their cases this does not seem to have been a matter of deliberate falsification, but rather a complete inability to conceive of Whites as Slaves. Ligon had written that the rebels in question had not been able to "endure such slavery" any longer and the later historians automatically assumed that this had to have been a reference to negroes. IT IS THIS PERSISTENT COGNITION BY CATEGORICAL PRECONCEPTION THAT RENDERS MUCH OF WHAT PASSES FOR COLONIAL HISTORY IN OUR ERA INACCURATE AND MISLEADING.
17th century colonial slavery and 19th century American slavery are not a seamless garment. Historians who pretend otherwise have to maintain several fallacies, the chief among these being the supposition that when White "servants" constituted the majority of servile laborers in the colonial period, they worked in privileged or even luxurious conditions which were forbidden to Blacks. In truth, WHITE SLAVES WERE OFTEN RESTRICTED TO DOING THE DIRTY, BACKBREAKING FIELD WORK WHILE BLACKS AND EVEN INDIANS WERE TAKEN INTO THE PLANTATION MANSION HOUSES TO WORK AS DOMESTICS:
"Contemporaries were aware that the popular stereotyping of (White) female indentured servants as whores, sluts and debauched wenches, discouraged their use in elite planter households. Many pioneer planters preferred to employ Amerindian women in their households...With the...establishment of an elitist social culture, there was a tendency to reject (White) indentured servants as domestics ...black women...represented a more attractive option and, as a result, were widely employed as domestics in the second half of the 17th century.
In 1675 for example John Blake, who had recently arrived on the island (of Barbados), informed his brother in Ireland that his White Indentured Servant was a 'slut' and he would like to be rid of her...(in favor of a 'neger wench')." (Natural Rebels, Beckles, pp. 56‑57)
In the 17th century White slaves were cheaper to acquire than Negroes and therefore were often mistreated to a greater extent. Having paid a bigger price for the Negro,
"the planters treated the black better than they did their 'Christian' White Servant. Even the Negroes recognized this and did not hesitate to show their contempt for those White Men who, they could see, were worse off than themselves..." (Bridenbaugh, p. 118)
IT WAS WHITE SLAVES WHO BUILT AMERICA FROM ITS VERY BEGINNINGS AND MADE UP THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SLAVE‑ ABORERS IN THE COLONIES NOT BLACKS in the 17th century. Negro slaves seldom had to do the kind of virtually lethal work the White Slaves of America did in the formative years of settlement.
"The frontier demands for heavy manual labor, such as felling trees, soil clearance, and general infrastructural development, had been satisfied primarily BY WHITE INDENTURED SERVANTS (Slaves) BETWEEN 1627 AND 1643." (Natural Rebels, Beckles, p. 8)
The merchant class of early America was an equal opportunity enslaver and viewed with enthusiasm the bondage of all poor people within their grasp, including their own White kinsmen. There was a precedent for this in the English legal concept of villeinage, a form of medieval White Slavery in England.
"...as late as 1669 those who thought of large‑scale agriculture assumed it would be manned not by Negroes but by servile Whites under a condition of villeinage. John Locke's constitutions for South Carolina envisaged an hereditary group of servile 'leet men'; and Lord Shaftsbury's signory on Locke Island in 1674 actually attempted to put the scheme into practice." (Handlin, p. 207)
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines servitude as "slavery or bondage of any kind." The dictionary defines "bondage" as "being bound by or subjected to external control." It defines "slavery" as "ownership of a person or persons by another or others." HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WHITES IN COLONIAL AMERICA WERE OWNED OUTRIGHT BY THEIR MASTERS AND DIED IN SLAVERY. THEY HAD NO CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN LIVES AND WERE AUCTIONED ON THE BLOCK AND EXAMINED LIKE LIVESTOCK exactly like Black slaves, with the exception that these Whites were enslaved by their own race. White Slaves,
"found themselves powerless as individuals, without honor or respect and driven into commodity production not by any inner sense of moral duty but by the outer stimulus of the whip." (White Servitude, Beckles, p. 5)
Upon arrival in America, White Slaves were,
"put up for sale by the ship captains or merchants ...Families were often separated under these circumstances when wives and offspring were auctioned off to the highest bidder." (Labor in America: A History, Foster R. Dulles, p. 7)
Another example:
"Eleanor Bradbury, sold with her three sons to a Maryland owner, was separated from her husband, who was bought by a man in Pennsylvania." (Van der Zee, p. 165)
White people who were passed over for purchase at the point of entry were taken into the back country by "soul drivers" who herded them along "like cattle to a Smithfield market" and then put them up for auction at public fairs.
"Prospective buyers felt their muscles, checked their teeth...like cattle..." (To Serve Well and Faithfully, Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, Sharon Salinger, 1682‑1800, p. 97)
White Men and Women were driven by their Jewish slavers, just as a cowboy would a herd of cattle:
"They are frequently hurried in droves, under the custody of severe brutal drivers into the Back Country to be disposed of as servants." (Jernegan, p. 225)
Those Whites for whom no buyer could be found even after marketing them inland were returned to the slave trader to be sold for a pittance. These Whites were officially referred to as "refuse."
The Virginia Company arranged with the City of London to have 100 POOR WHITE CHILDREN "out of the swarms that swarm in the place" sent to Virginia in 1619 for sale to the wealthy planters of the colony TO BE USED AS SLAVE LABOR. The Privy Council of London authorized the Virginia Company to,
"imprison, punish and dispose of any of those children upon any disorder by them committed, as cause shall require."
The trade in White slaves was a natural one for English merchants who imported sugar and tobacco from the colonies. Whites kidnapped in Britain could be exchanged directly for this produce. The trade in White Slaves was basically a return hall operation. The operations of Captain Henry Brayne were typical. In November of 1670, Capt. Brayne was ordered to sail from Carolina with a consignment of timber for sale in the West Indies. From there he was to set sail for London with a load of sugar purchased with the profits from the sale of the timber. In England he was to sell the sugar and fill his ship with from 200 to 300 WHITE SLAVES TO BE SOLD IN CAROLINA. The notion of a "contract" and of the legal status of the White in "servitude" became a fiction as a result of the exigencies of the occasion.
In 1623 George Sandys, the treasurer of Virginia, was forced to sell the only remaining eleven White Slaves of his Company for lack of provisions to support them. Seven of these White People were sold for 150 pounds of tobacco.
The slave‑status of Whites held in colonial bondage can also be seen by studying the disposition of the estates of the wealthy Whites. Whites in bondage were rated as inventories and disposed of by will and by deed along with the rest of the property. They were bought, sold, bartered, gambled away, mortgaged, weighed on scales like farm animals and taxed as property. Richard Ligon, a contemporary eyewitness to White Slavery, in his 1657 A True and Exact History tells of a White Slave, a woman, who was being traded by her master for a pig. Both the pig and the White Woman were weighed on a scale.
"The price was set for a groat a pound for the hog's flesh and six pence for the woman's flesh..." (p. 59)
In general, WHITES WERE NOT TREATED WITH THE RELATIVE DIGNITY THE TERM "indentured servants" connotes, BUT AS DEGRADED CHATTEL; part of the personal estate of the master and on a par with his farm animals.
The term "indentured servitude" therefore IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PROPAGANDISTIC SOFTENING OF THE HISTORIC EXPERIENCE OF ENSLAVED WHITE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO MAKE A FALSE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEIR SUFFERINGS AND THOSE OF NEGRO SLAVES! This is not to deny the existence of a fortunate class of Whites who could in fact be called "indentured servants" according to the modern conception of the term, who worked under privileged conditions of limited bondage for a specific period of time, primarily as apprentices. These lucky few were given religious instruction and could sue in a court of law. They were employed in return for their transportation to America and room and board during their period of service. But certain [Jewish, or their lackys] historians pretend that this apprentice system, the privileged form of bound labor, was representative of the entire experience of White bondage in America. In actuality, the indentured apprentice system represented the condition of only a tiny segment of the Whites in bondage in early America.
"Strictly speaking, the term indentured servant should apply only to those persons who had bound them-selves voluntarily to service but it is generally used for all classes of bond servants." (A History of Colonial America, Oliver P. Chitwood, p. 341)
Richard B. Morris in Government and Labor in Early America notes that,
"In the colonies, however, apprenticeship was merely a highly specialized and favored form of bound labor. The more comprehensive colonial institution included all persons bound to labor for periods of years as determined either by agreement or by law, both minors and adults, and Indians and Negroes as well as Whites." (p. 310)
In a reversal of our contemporary ideas about White "indenture" and Black "slavery," many Blacks in colonial America were often temporary bondsmen freed after a period of time. Peter Hancock arranged for a negro servant named Asha to serve for twelve months, thenceforth to be a free person. (Bridenbaugh, pp. 120‑121). Black indentured servants in the 18th century even had an "education clause" in their contracts)
"...free negro boys bound out as apprentices were sometimes given the benefit of an educational clause in the indenture. Two such cases occur in the Princess Anne County Records; one in 1719, to learn the trade of tanner, the master to 'teach him to read,' and the other, in 1727, to learn the trade of gunsmith, the master to teach him 'to read the Bible distinctly." (Jernegan, p. 162)
Newspaper and court records in South Carolina cite,
"a free negro fellow named Johnny Holmes...lately an indented servant with Nicholas Trott..." and "a negro man commonly called Jack Cutler ‑‑ he is a free negro having faithfully served out his time with me four years according to the contract agreed upon..." (Warren B. Smith, p. 106)
David W. Galenson is the author of an Orwellian suppression of the horrors and conditions of White Slavery entitled White Servitude in Colonial America. He states concerning White slaves,
"European men and women could exercise choice both in deciding whether to migrate to the colonies and in choosing possible destinations."
THIS IS POSITIVELY MISLEADING! At the bare minimum, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WHITE SLAVES WERE KIDNAPPED OFF THE STREETS AND ROADS OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE COURSE OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AND SOLD TO CAPTAINS OF SLAVE SHIPS IN LONDON KNOWN AS "WHITE GUINEAMEN." Ten thousand Whites were kidnapped from England in the year 1670 alone. (History of the United States, Vol. 2, Edward Channing, p. 369) The very word "kidnapper" was first coined in Britain in the 1600s to describe those who captured and sold White Children into slavery ("kid‑nabbers").
Another whitewash is the heralded "classic work" on the subject, Abbot Emerson Smith's Colonists in Bondage which is one long cover‑up of the extent of the kidnapping, the denial of the existence of White Slavery and numerous other apologies for the establishment including a cover‑up of the deportation and enslavement of the Irish people. But the record proves otherwise. (For more on Abbot Emerson Smith's errors cf. Warren B. Smith, White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina, p. ix)
"Cromwell's conquest of Ireland in the middle of the seventeenth century made slaves as well as subjects of the Irish people. Over a hundred thousand men, women and children were seized by the English troops and shipped to the West Indies, where they were sold into slavery..." (Slavery in Colonial America, America's Revolutionary Heritage, George Novack, p. 142)
On September 11, 1655 came the following decree from the Puritan Protectorate by Henry Cromwell in London:
"Concerning the young (Irish) women, although we must use force in takinge them up, yet it beinge so much for their owne goode, and likely to be of soe great advantage to the publique, it is not in the least doubted, that you may have such number of them as you thinke fitt to make use uppon this account."
The "account" was enslavement and transportation to the colonies.
A WEEK LATER HENRY CROMWELL ORDERED THAT 1,500 IRISH BOYS AGED 12 TO 14 ALSO BE SHIPPED INTO SLAVERY WITH THE IRISH GIRLS IN THE STEAMING TROPICS OF JAMAICA AND BARBADOS IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH KILLED OFF WHITE ADULT SLAVES BY THE THOUSANDS DUE TO THE RIGORS OF FIELD WORK IN THAT CLIMATE AND THE SAVAGE BRUTALITY OF THEIR OVERSEERS.
In October the Council of State approved the plan. Altogether more than one hundred thousand Irish were shipped to the West Indies WHERE THEY DIED IN SLAVERY IN HORRIBLE CONDITIONS. Children weren't the only victims. Even eighty year old Irish women were deported to the West Indies and enslaved. (The Curse of Cromwell: A History of the Ironside Conquest of Ireland, D.M.R. Esson, 1649‑53, p. 176) Irish religious leaders were herded into,
"internment camps throughout Ireland, and were then moved progressively to the ports for shipment overseas like cattle." (D.M.R. Esson, p. 159)
By the time Cromwell's men had finished with the Irish people, only one‑sixth of the Irish population remained on their lands. (Esson, p. 168) Cromwell did not only enslave Catholics. Poor White Protestants on the English mainland fared no better. In February, 1656 he ordered his soldiers to find 1,200 poor English Women for enslavement and deportation to the colonies. In March he repeated the order but increased the quota to "2,000 young women of England." In the same year, Cromwell's Council of State ordered all the homeless poor of Scotland, male and female, transported to Jamaica for enslavement. (Eric Williams, p. 101) Of course, Cromwell and the Puritan ruling class were not the only ones involved in the enslavement of Whites.
During the Restoration reign of Charles II, the king with Catholic sympathizers who had been Cromwell's arch‑enemy, King Charles enslaved large groups of poor Presbyterians and Scottish Covenanters and deported them to the plantations in turn. Legislation sponsored by King Charles in 1686, intended to ensure the enslavement of Protestant rebels in the Caribbean colonies, was so harsh that one observer noted,
"THE CONDITION OF THESE REBELS WAS BY THIS ACT MADE AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE THAN THE NEGROES." (Acts Passed in the Island of Barbados, Richard Hall, p. 484); "BY FAR THE LARGEST NUMBER and certainly the most important group OF WHITE INDENTURED SERVANTS (Slaves) WERE THE POOR PROTESTANTS FROM EUROPE." (Warren B. Smith, p. 44)
There were four categories of status for White People in colonial America: White freemen, White freemen who owned property, White apprentices (also called "indentured servants," "redemptioners" and "free‑willers") and White Slaves.
The attempt by Abbot Emerson Smith, Galenson and many others at denying the existence and brutal treatment of White Slaves by pretending they were mostly just "indentured servants" learning a trade, regulated according to venerable medieval Guild traditions of apprenticeship runs completely counter to the documentary record.
"...the planters did not conceive of their (White) servants socially and emotionally as integral parts of the family or household, but instead viewed them as an alien commodity...Having abandoned the moral responsibility aspect of pre‑capitalist ideology, masters enforced an often violent social domination of (White) servants by the manipulation of oppressive legal codes...transform(ing)... indentured servitude, with its pre‑industrial, moral, paternalistic superstructure, into a market system of brutal servitude...maintained by the systematic application of legally sanctioned force and violence." (White Servitude, Beckles, pp. xiv and 5)
Informal British and colonial custom validated the kidnapping of working‑class British Whites and their enslavement in the colonies under such euphemisms as "Servitude according to the Custom" which upheld the force of "verbal contracts" which shipmasters and press‑gangs claimed existed between them and the wretched Whites they kidnapped off the streets of England and sold into colonial slavery. These justifications for White slavery arose in law determined by penal codes. In other words, White slavery was permitted and perpetuated on the claim that all who were thus enslaved were criminals. No proof for this claim was needed because the fact of one's enslavement "proved" the fact of one's "criminality."
The history of White Slavery in the New World can be found within the history of the enforcement of the penal codes in Britain and America. Slaves were made of poor White "criminals" who had stolen as little as one sheep, a loaf of bread or had been convicted of destroying shrubbery in an aristocrat's garden. They would be separated from their parents or spouse and "transported" to the colonies for life. In 1655 four teenagers were whipped through the streets of Edinburg, Scotland, burned behind the ears and "barbadosed" for interrupting a minister, James Scott, while he was preaching in church. (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Vol. 5, p. 1,113) The "convict" label was so ubiquitous that it prompted Samuel Johnson's remark on Americans:
"Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be content with anything we allow them short of hanging."
But even an exclusive focus on the indentured servant or "apprentice" class cannot conceal the fact of White Slavery because very often the distinctions between the two blurred. Through a process of subterfuge and entrapment, White apprentices were regularly transformed into White slaves, as we shall see.
White Slaves were owned not only by individual aristocrats and rich planters but by the colonial government itself or its governor. White Slaves included not just paupers but such "wicked villaines" as "vagrants, beggars, disorderly and other dissolute persons" as well as White Children from the counties and towns of Britain who were stolen from their parents through no Harriet Beecher Stowe rose to prominence in chronicling the anguish and hardship of these enslaved White Children.
A large number of the White Slaves arriving in America described as "convicts" were actually political prisoners. Of the Scottish troops captured at the battle of Worcester more than 600 hundred were shipped to Virginia as slaves in 1651. The rebels of 1666 were sent as slaves to the colonies as were the Monmouth rebels of 1685 and the Jacobites of the rising of 1715.
"It is now commonly accepted that the African slave trade could not have operated for over three centuries without the active participation of some African states and political leaders. The human merchandise was obtained largely as a result of political conflicts between neighboring states and tribes. Less well known are the ways in which...(WHITE SLAVE LABORERS WERE OBTAINED)...from the British Isles for the West Indies plantations in the seventeenth century. The English state ruthlessly rounded up victims of political conflict and prisoners of war at places like Dunbar, Worcester, Salisbury and, during territorial expansionism, in Ireland, for sale to West Indian merchants. In this respect English governments and African political leaders were responding to the same market forces." (White Servitude, Beckles, p. 52)
The Crown put tens of thousands of political dissidents in slavery, some being shipped to New England while others were deported to the plantations of the West Indies and worked to death in the island's boiler houses, mills and sugar cane fields. Cromwell sold the White survivors of the massacre at Drogheda to slave‑traders in the Barbados,
"and thereafter it became his fixed policy to 'barbadoes' his opponents." (Eric Williams, p. 101)
By 1655, half of the total White population of Barbados consisted of political prisoners sold into slavery. (The 'Redlegs' of Barbados, Jill Sheppard, p. 18)
Establishment historians claim that only Blacks were slaves because Whites were released after a term of seven or ten years of servitude. But the history of the enslavement of Britain's political prisoners disproves this notion. Plantation owners saw it as their profitable and patriotic duty to extend the servitude of the political prisoners on the plantations far beyond the supposed ten or twenty year limit. British political prisoners were shipped into slavery in America for life, not seven or fourteen years:
"...those who survived the voyage worked out their lives in bondage on the plantations of America." (Glencoe, John Prebble, p. 65); "After the battle of Worcester in 1652 the first mention is made of Royalists having been brought out to Barbados and sold as slaves...they had been taken prisoner at Exeter and IIchester...From there they were driven straight to Plymouth, put on a ship where they remained below deck, sleeping amongst the horses. On arrival in Barbados they were sold as chattel and employed in grinding the mills, attending to the furnaces and digging in the hot sun, whipped at the whipping post as rogues, and sleeping in stiles worse than pigs." (A History of Barbados, Ronald Tree, p. 35)
This was no "temporary bondage." Of 1300 Cavaliers enslaved in 1652 in Barbados almost all of them died in slavery. (Bridenbaugh, pp. 110‑111; Heinrich von Uchteritz, Kurze Reise, pp. 3‑10) The enslavement of White political prisoners in the West Indies was debated in the English Parliament on March 25, 1659. The practice was allowed to continue and was still in operation as late as 1746 when Scottish Highland infantrymen and French and Irish regulars of the Jacobite army were transported into slavery in Barbados after the battle of Culloden. (Sheppard, p. 3)� Whites convicted of no crime whatever were made slaves by being captured by press‑gangs in Britain and shipped into slavery in colonial America. These slave raids (also known as "spiriting") began under the reign of King Charles I, continued during the Commonwealth period and throughout the reign of Charles II.
It was an organized system of kidnapping English, Welsh and Scottish workers, young and old, and transporting them to the American colonies to be sold, with the profits split between the press‑gangs and the shipmaster to whom the captured Whyites were assigned in chains. These slave hunting gangs were viewed with covert approval by the British aristocracy who feared the overpopulation of the White underclass. Confiscatory levels of taxation and the enclosure laws had driven British small farmers and village dwellers off the land and into the cities where they gathered and "loitered," a threat to the order and comfort of the propertied classes.
17th and 18th century economists advocated the enslavement of poor Whites because they saw them as the cheapest and most effective way to develop the colonies in the New World and expand the British empire. It was claimed that by making slave laborers out of poor Whites they were saved from being otherwise
"chargeable and unprofitable to the Realm."
As the plantation system expanded in the Southern American colonies, planters demanded the legalization of the practice of kidnapping poor Whites. As it stood laws were on the books forbidding kidnapping but these were for show and were enforced with very infrequent, token arrests of "spirits."
The planters' need for White slave labor expanded to such an extent that they tired of having to operate in quasi‑legal manner. In response in February, 1652 it was enacted that:
"...it may be lawful for...two or more justices of the peace within any country, citty or towne corporate belonging to this commonwealth to from tyme to tyme by warrant...case to be apprehended, seized on and detained all and every person or persons that shall be found begging and vagrant...in any towne, parish or place to be conveyed into the port of London, or unto any other port...from where such person or persons may be shipped...into any forraign collonie or plantation..." (Egerton Manuscript, British Museum)
Parliamentary legislation of 1664 allowed for the capture of White Children who were rounded up and shipped out in chains. Judges received 50% of the profits from the sale of the White Youths with another percentage going to the king. With these laws, it was open season on the poor of Great Britain as well as anyone the rich despised. In 1682 four White men from Devon, England were enslaved and transported to the colonies. The judges indicated the four for "wandering." From 1662 to 1665, the judges of Edinburgh, Scotland ordered the enslavement and shipment to the colonies of a large number of "rogues" and "others who made life unpleasant for the British upper classes." (Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, Vol. 1, p. 181; Vol 2. p. 101)
In Charles County court in Maryland in 1690 it was agreed that the "indentures" under which seven White Slaves were being held were "kidnapper's indentures" and therefore technically invalid. But the court ruled that the White Slaves should continue to be held in slavery to their various colonial masters based on the so‑called "custom of the country." The ladies of the royal court and even the mayor of Bristol, England were not beneath profiting from the lucrative traffic in poor White People.
Every pretense was used to decoy the victims aboard ships lying in the Thames. The kidnapping of poor Whites became a major industry in such English port cities as London, Plymouth, Southhapton and Dover and in Scotland at Aberdeen where the kidnapping of White Children and their sale into slaver "had become an industry."
The kidnapping of English children into slavery in America was actually legalized during the first quarter of the 17th century. In that period a large number of the children of poor parents, as well as orphan children were targeted for the White Slave trade. The poor White Children were described as a "plague" and a "rowdy element."
Aristocrats who ran the Virginia Company such as Sir Thomas Smythe and Sir Edwin Sandys viewed the children as a convenient pool of slave laborers for the fields of the Virginia colony. In their petition to the Council of London in 1618 they complained of the great number of "vagrant" children in the streets and requested that they might be transported to Virginia to serve as laborers. A bill was passed in September of 1618 permitting the capture of children aged eight years old or older, girls as well as boys. The eight year old boys were to be enslaved for sixteen years and the eight year old girls for fourteen years, after which, it was said, they would be givne land. (The Transportation of Vagrant Children from London to Virginia, 1618‑1622, Robert C. Johnson, in Early Stuart Studies, p. 139) A directive was issued for the capture of children in London, empowering city aldermen to direct their constables to seize children on the streets and commit them to the prison‑hospital at Bridewell, where they were to await shipment to America. (Johnson, pp. 130‑140)
"...their only 'crime' was that they were poor and happened to be found loitering or sleeping in the streets when the constable passed by." (Johnson, p. 142)
The street was not the only place child slaves were to be procured however. The homes of indigent parents with large families were also on the agenda of the slave‑traders. Poor English parents were given the "opportunity" to surrender one or more of their children to the slavers. If they refused they were to be starved into submission by being denied any further relief assistance from the local government:
"To carry out the provisions of the act the Lord Mayor (Sir William Cockayne) ...directed the alderman...to (make) inquiry of those parents 'overcharged and burdened with poor children' whether they wished to send any of them to Virginia...those who replied negatively were to be told they would not receive any further poor relief from the parish." (Johnson, p. 142)
The grieving parents were assured that the shipment of their children to Virginia would be beneficial to the children because it was a place where "under sever masters they may be brought to goodness." (Johnson. p. 143)
In January of 1620 a group of desperate, terrified English children attempted to break out of Bridewell where they had been imprisoned while awaiting the slave‑ships to America. They rose up and fought:
"...matters were further complicated by the refusal of some of the children to be transported. In late January a kind of 'revolt' occurred at Bridewell, with some of the 'ill‑disposed' among the children declaring 'their unwillingness to go to Virginia..." (Johnson, p, 143) "A hasty letter from (Sir Edwin) Sandys to the King's secretary (Sir Robert Naunton) quickly rectified the situation."
On January 31 the Privy Council decreed that if any of the children continued to their "obstinance" they would be severely punished.
It is possible that ONE OF THE CHILDREN WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED AS AN EXAMPLE TO THE OTHERS! What is certain is that a month later the children, mostly boys, were forced on board the ship Duty and transported to Virginia. From thence onward, English male child slaves came to be known as "Duty Boys." (The First Republic in America, Alexander Brown, p. 375)
There would be many more shipments of these doomed children bound for the colonies in the years ahead.
"From that time on little is known about them except that very few lived to become adults. When a 'muster' or census of the (Virginia) colony was taken in 1625, the names of only seven boys were listed (of the children kidnapped in 1619). All the rest were dead...The statistics for the children sent in 1620 are equally grim...no more than five were alive in 1625." (Johnson, p. 147)
On April 30, 1621 Sir Edwin Sandys presented a plan to the English parliament for the solution of the threat poor English people posed to the fabulously wealthy aristocracy: mass shipment to Virginia, where they would all be "brought to goodness."
When control of the colony of Virginia passed from the privately‑ held Virginia Company directly to the king, it was deemed more expedient, as time went on, to privatize the traffic in White Children while placing it on an even larger basis to meet the cheap labor needs of all the colonies. In this way the Crown avoided the opprobrium that might have been connected with the further official sale of English children even as the aristocracy covertly expanded this slave trade dramatically.
The early traffic in White Children to Virginia had proved profitable not only for the Virginia Company but for the judges and other officials in England who administered the capture of the children: J. Ferrar, treasurer of the Virginia Company, indicated that he had been approached by the Maarshal of London and other officials who had been involved in procuring children for the colony, proclaiming that they were owed a financial reward,
"for their care and travail therein, that they might be encouraged hereafter to take the like pains whensoever they should have again the like occasion."
The officials subsequently received the handsome "cut" for their part in the loathsome traffic in kidnapped White Children which they had desired. (The Records of the Virginia Company of London, Susan M. Kingsbury, ed., Vol. 1, p. 424 and Johnson, pp. 144‑145) This collusion between the public and private sphere generated profits and established a precedent for many more "occasions" where "liek pains" would be eagerly taken. The precedent established was the cornerstone of the trade in Child‑slaves in Britain for decades to come; a trade whose center, after London, would become the ports of Scotland:
"Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing 'by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.' Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns...So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town." (Bound Over, Van der Zee, p. 210)
This man was Peter Williamson who as a child in 1743 was captured in Aberdeen and sold as a slave for America with 70 other kidnapped Scottish Children in addition to other freight. After eleven weeks at sea, the ship ran aground on a sand bar near Cape May on the Delaware river. As it began to take on water, the crew fled in a lifeboat, leaving the boys to drown in the sinking ship. The Planter managed to stay afloat until morning however, and the slavers returned to salvage their "cargo."
Peter Williamson was twice‑blessed. He not only survived the Planter but had the great good fortune to have been purchased by a former slave, Hugh Wilson, who had also been kidnapped in Scotland as a child. Wilson had fled slavery in another colony and now bought Williamson in Pennsylvania. He did so solely out of compassion, knowing the boy would be bought by someone else had Wilson not bought him first. Wilson paid for Williamson's education in a colonial school and years later on his death, bequeathed to the lad his horse, saddle and a small sum of money, all Wilson had in the world.
With this advantage, Williamson married, became an Indian‑fighter on the frontier and eventually made his way back to Scotland, seeking justice for himself and on behalf of all kidnapped children including his deceased friend Hugh Wilson. This took the form of a book, The Life and Curious Adventures of Peter Williamson, Who Was Carried Off from Aberdeen and Sold for a Slave. But when he attempted to distribute it in Aberdeen he was arrested on a charge of publishing a,
"scurrilous and infamous libel, reflecting greatly upon the character and reputations of the merchants of Aberdeen."
The book was ordered to be publicly burned and Williamson jailed. He was eventually fined and banished from the city. Williamson did not give up but sued the judges of Aberdeen and took sworn statements from people who had witnessed kidnappings or who had had their own children snatched by slavers. Typical was the testimony of William Jamieson of Oldmeldrum, a farming village 12 miles from Aberdeen. In 1741, Jamiesons's ten year old son John was captured by a "spirit" gang in the employ of "Bonny John" Burnet, a powerful slave‑merchant based in Aberdeen.
After making inquiries, Jamieson learned that his son was being held for shipment to the "Plantations." Jamieson hurried to Aberdeen and frantically searched the docks and ships for his boy. He found him on shore among a circle of about sixty other boys, guarded by Bonny John's slavers who brandished horse whips. When the boys walked outside the circle they were shipped. Jamieson called to his son to come to him. The boy tried to run to his father. Father and son were beaten to the ground by the slavers. Jamieson sought a writ from the Scottish courts but was informed,
"that it would be vain for him to apply to the magistrates to get his son liberate: because some of the magistrates had a hand in those doings."
Jamieson never saw his son alive again,
"having never heard of him since he was carried away."
The testimony from Jamieson and from many others helped Peter Williamson to prevail. The Aberdeen merchants were ordered by the Edinburgh Court of Sessions to pay him 100 pounds sterling. Williamson was personally vindicated and his book would later be printed in a new edition. The kidnapping continued, however.
The enslavement of WHITE CHILDREN FROM GREAT BRITAIN became the subject of a much better known book, Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped which was based on the real‑life case of James Annesley whose uncle, the Earl of Anglesey, had arranged for him to be seized and sold into slavery in America, in order to remove any challenge to the Earl's inheritance of his brother's estates.
Annesley was savagely whipped and brutally mistreated in America and it appeared as if he would die in chains. He was eventually re‑sold to another master who accepted his story that he was an English lord and the heir to the Anglesey barony. He managed to make his way back to Scotland where he wrote a book, Memoirs of an Unfortunate Young Nobleman, Returned from Thirteen Years' Slavery in America, which came to the attention of Robert Louis Stevenson.
Unfortunately this rare case involving the enslavement of a member of the English nobility attracted attention only because it involved royalty. The far more common plight of hundreds of thousands of poor British children who languished and died in slavery in the colonies was ignored and their lot remained unchanged in the wake of the publication of Stevenson's classic.
The head of one kidnapping ring, John Stewart, sold at least 500 White youths per year into slavery in the colonies. Stewart's thugs were paid twenty‑five shillings for Whites they procured by force, usually a knock in the head with a blunt instrument, or fraud. Stewart sold the Whites to the masters of the "White Guineaman" slave ships for forty shillings each. One eyewitness to the mass kidnapping of poor Whites estimated that 10,000 were sold into slavery every year from throughout Great Britain. (Information in a pamphlet by M. Godwyn, London, 1680) White Slaves transported to the colonies suffered a staggering loss of life in the 17th and 18th century. During the voyage to America it was customary to keep the White Slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A White Slave would be confined to a hole not more than sixteen feet long, chained with 50 other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks.
The weeks of confinement below deck in the ship's stifling hold often resulted in outbreaks of contagious disease which would sweep through the "cargo" of White "freight" chained in the bowels of the ship. Ships carrying White Slaves to America often lost half their (White) Slaves to death. According to historian Sharon V. Salinger,
"Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants at certain times equaled that for [Black] slaves in the 'middle passage,' and during other periods actually exceeded the death rate for [Black] slaves." (Salinger, p. 91)
Foster R. Dulles writing in Labor in America: A History, p. 6, states that whether convicts, children 'spirited' from the countryside or political prisoners, White slaves,
"experienced discomforts and sufferings on their voyage across the Atlantic that paralleled the cruel hardships undergone by negro slaves on the notorious Middle Passage."
Dulles says the Whites were,
"indiscriminately herded aboard the 'white guineamen,' often as many as 300 passengers on little vessels of not more than 200 tons burden, overcrowded, unsanitary...THE MORTALITY RATE WAS SOMETIMES AS HIGH AS 50% and YOUNG CHILDREN SELDOM SURVIVED THE HORRORS OF A VOYAGE which might last anywhere from seven to twelve weeks."
Independent investigator A.B. Ellis in the Argosy writes concerning the transport of White Slaves,
"The human cargo, many of whom were still tormented by unhealed wounds, could not all lie down at once without lying on each other. They were never suffered to go on deck. The hatchway was constantly watched by sentinels armed with hangers and blunder busses. In the dungeons below all was darkness, stench, lamentation, disease and death."
Marcus Jernegan describes the greed of the shipmasters which led to horrendous loss of life for White Slaves transported to America:
"The voyage over often repeated the horrors of the famous 'middle passage' of slavery fame. An average cargo was three hundred, but the shipmaster, for greater profit, would sometimes crowd as many as six hundred into a small vessel ...The mortality under such circumstances was tremendous, sometimes more than half...Mittelberger (an eyewitness) says he saw thirty‑two children thrown into the ocean during one voyage." (Jernegan, pp. 50‑51);
"The mercantile firms, as importers of (White) servants, were not too careful about their treatment, as the more important purpose of the transaction was to get ships over to South Carolina which could carry local produce back to Europe. Consequently the Irish, as well as others, suffered greatly...It was almost as if the British merchants had redirected their vessels from the African coast to the Irish coast, with the White Servants coming over in much the same fashion as the African slaves." (Warren B. Smith, p. 42)
A study of the middle passage of White Slaves was included in a Parliamentary Petition of 1659. It reported that White Slaves were locked below deck for two weeks while the slave ship was still in port. Once under way, they were "all the way locked up under decks...amongst horses." They were chained from their legs to their necks. One White Woman Slave, Elizabeth Dudgeon, had dared to talk back to a guard. She was trussed up to a ship's grating and mercilessly whipped. One of the ship's officers relished watching her whipped:
"The corporal did not play with her, but laid it home, which I was very glad to see...she has long been fishing for it, which she has at last got to her heart's content." (Journal of Ralph Clark, entry of July 3, 1787)
In order to realize the maximum profit from the trade in White Slaves, the captains of the White Guineamen crammed their ships with as many poor Whites as possible, certain that even with the most callous disregard for the lives of the Whites the financial gain would still make the trip worth the effort. A loss of 20% of their White "cargo" was regarded as acceptable. But sometimes losses were much higher. Out of 350 White Slaves on a ship bound for the colonies in 1638 only 80 arrived alive.
"We have thrown over board two and three a day for many days together" wrote Thomas Rous, a survivor of the trip. A ship carrying White Slaves in 1685, the Betty of London, left England with 100 White Slaves and arrived in the colonies with 49 left. A number of factors contributed to the higher death rates for White Slaves than Blacks. Although the goal of maximum profits motivated both trades, it cost more to obtain Blacks from Africa than it did to capture Whites in Europe.
WHITE SLAVES WERE NOT CARED FOR AS WELL AS BLACKS BECAUSE THE WHITES WERE CHEAPLY OBTAINED AND WERE VIEWED AS EXPENDABLE.
"The African slave trade was not fully established in the early 17th century...The price of African slaves was prohibitively high and the English were neither familiar with nor committed to black slavery as a basic institution." (White Servitude, Beckles, p. 3); "Sold to a master in Merion, near Philadelphia, David Evans was put to work 'hewing and uprooting trees,' land clearing, the most arduous of colonial labor, work that was spared black slaves because they were too valuable." (Van der Zee, p. 138); "Before 1650, however, the greater victims of man's inhumanity were the mass of White Christian servants who suffered at the hands of callous, White Christian masters. For the time being, with all of their troubles, the blacks had it better." (Bridenbaugh, p. 120)
In the British West Indies the torture visited upon White Slaves by their masters was routine. Masters hung White Slaves by their hands and set their hands afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of negro slaves on the grounds that,
"as the planters would have to pay much for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Whites)..."
many of whom, he charged were killed by overwork and cruel treatment.
Ship Captains involved in the White Slaves trade obtained White Slaves with penal status free of charge and for all other categories of White Slaves paid at most a small sum to an agent to procure them, forfeiting only the cost of their keep on board ship if they died. Moreover, traders in Black slaves operated ships designed solely for the purpose of carrying human cargo with the intent of creating conditions whereby as many Black slaves as possible would reach America alive. White Slave ships were cargo ships with no special provisions for passengers. In addition, transportation rules decreed that, in cases where White Slaves were sold in advance to individual planters in America, if the White Slave survived the voyage beyond the halfway point in the journey, the planter in America, not the captain of the slave ship, would be responsible for the costs of the White Slaves' provisions whether or not the slave survived the trip.
Captains of the slave ships became infamous for providing sufficient food for only the first half of the trip and then virtually starving their White captives until they arrived in America.
"Jammed into filthy holds, manacled, starved and abused, they suffered and died during the crossings in gross numbers. Thousands were children under 12, snatched off the streets..." (Kendall, p. 1);
"...the transportation...became a profitable enterprise. Traders delivered thousands of bound laborers to Pennsylvania and exhibited a callous disregard for their...cargoes." (Salinger, p. 88)
As a result, White Slaves on board these ships suffered a high rate of disease. The number of diseased White Slaves arriving was high enough for Pennsylvania officials to recommend a quarantine law for them. Thus a new torment was to be endured for White Slaves who,
"were often stopped just short of the New World, with land in sight, and forced to remain quarantined on board ships in which they had just spent a horrifying ten to twelve weeks." (Salinger, p. 89)
In 1738 Dr. Thomas Graeme reported to the colonial Council of Pennsylvania that if two ships crammed with White Slaves were allowed to land,
"it might prove Dangerous to the health of the inhabitants of the Province." (Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania, Colonial Records, 4:306)
Ships filled with diseased White Slaves landed anyway. In 1750 an island was established for their quarantine, Fisher Island, at the mouth of Schuylkill River. But the establishment of the quarantine area did nothing to protect the health of the White Slaves and the island was more typical of Devil's Island than a place of recuperation.
In 1764 a clergyman, Pastor Helmuth, visited Fisher island and described it as
"a land of the living dead, a vault full of living corpses."
Even privileged 17th and 18th century "apprentices" often became slaves in the end (i.e., unpaid, forced laborers for life) based on contractual trickery, judicial malfeasance and usury employed against them during their supposedly limited term as indentured servants. Such an apprentice would be enticed to borrow sums of money, sign a contract with impossible provisions guaranteeing his or her violation of the contractual terms and other unscrupulous means of extending both of the period of servitude as well as broadening the scope of the servant's obligations. By these means an apprentice could be transformed into a slave for life.
Free White people were sometimes induced to sign "indentures" and place themselves in voluntary "temporary" slavery with the promise of obtaining farm acreage at the end of their term of indenture. An American colony typically offered 50 acres to such persons. This was actually little more than an organized racket. The alleged "servant" had his or her land grant entrusted to the landowner for whom they labored, with the understanding that title would pass to the servant at the end of his term of labor. But he could forfeit his rights to this promised land on the slightest pretext of his owner, on such grounds as running away (the owner's word would do) or for "indolence."
For the price of a White Slave's transport, six pounds, his owner secured a "headright" to the land which was supposedly intended to go to the "servant" but which was instead combined with the land supposedly set aside for other White Slaves and formed into an estate which would multiply in value. By this means and with an occasional additional fee to an English merchant or "spirit" who provided the landowner with kidnapped extra White Slaves, the plantation owners of colonial America played Monopoly with the fertile valleys and wooded uplands of Maryland and Virginia. Meanwhile the rightful owners of this land lay in paupers' graves or enshackled for life. This monopolistic grip on the land market was detrimental to all White laborers. Those White slaves who did manage to obtain their freedom alter thirty or forty years as chattel, were swindled out of the spectral "freedom dues" of acreage, left to exist as landless peasants and scorned as "hillbillies" and "White trash," in spite of decades of labor under monstrous conditions of hardship.
"One would like to think that some of the few survivors went on to become prominent leaders of the colony or were the founders of great families. This does not appear to be the case...Some were doubtless the progenitors of the 'poor white trash' of the South...many of the free whites who had descended from the poorer elements of the white servant class became objects of charity..." (Johnson, p. 147; Jernegan, pp. 56 and 178);
"...at no time after 1640 in either Barbados or St. Christopher, and probably Nevis, was there any cheap land enough for a man to purchase with his freedom dues...the vast majority never became landholders..." (Bridenbaugh, p. 113);
"It then became the custom to give the servant at the end of his term, not land, but three hundred pounds of sugar, worth less than two pounds sterling...It was hardly worth the servant's while to endure the conditions which have been described for...($4 worth) of sugar." (Eric Williams, pp. 102‑103)
These former White Slaves' share of the accumulated wealth of the American colonies, measured by any standard, was negligible; their say in the planter aristocracy was virtually non‑existent. They were the "expendable" by‑products and survivors of a system of exploitation governed solely by merchant companies chartered in England by aristocratic fiat. It was the exclusive government by a merchant company which Adam Smith assailed as the worst of all governments for any country. Often working conditions were made especially gruesome toward the end of the period when the [White] servant's contract was due to expire in order to induce him to run away, lose his 50 acres and be held extra years in enslavement for fleeing.
"Toward the end of the term of servitude, working conditions would often be deliberately worsened, tempting the man to run away so the master might gain these advantages." (Kendall, p. 7)
Of 5,000 "indentured servants [Slaves]" who entered the colony of Maryland between 1670 and 1680, fewer than 1300 proved their rights to their 50 acre "freedom dues." What had become of the others? More than 1400 DIED FROM OVERWORK, CHRONIC MALNOURISHMENT AND DISEASE. THE OTHERS WERE DEFRAUDED.
"By the 18th century the White Servant class was disillusioned ...The planters had...squashed the laboring Whites...They were the easy pawns of the planters, who despised them..." (Rebels and Ractionaries, Beckles, pp. 18‑19)
The statutes overseeing non‑penal indentures servitude in colonial America were mere window‑dressing and neither these statutes or the Common Law proved any obstacle to the gradual enslavement of those with the non‑penal status of "indentured servant," by means of tacking on extra time to be served, on the basis of fabricated or trumped charges and minor offenses. A Virginia law of 1619 provided that
"if a servant willfully neglect his master's commands he shall suffer bodily punishment."
When Wyatt became Governor in 1621 he was ordered to see that punishment for offenses committed by White slaves would also be in terms of labor on behalf of the colonial government, such labor to be performed after the slave fulfilled his original period of service to his master. This is the evil practice of lengthening the time required for the White Person's term of labor, a practice which quickly resulted in the lengthening of the term of "service" by years and ended in the perpetual enslavement of the White.
"While it is true that the Common Law of England had the status of national law with territorial extent in the colonies, the relation of Master to servant in cases of what began as non‑penal indentured servitude, was unknown to the Common Law and could neither be derived from nor regulated by it." (Massachusetts and the Common Law, American History Review, cf. Richard B. Morris, 1926)
Both indentured servitude and the White Slavery were permitted under of the penal codes, depended for their regulation and sanction on special local statutes and tribunals which acted as the "necessities of the occasion" demanded. The legacy of White enslavement bound up in the medieval English legal concept of "villeinage" contributed an informal framework or milieu at least, for legitimizing the enslavement of the White poor in British‑America. In this light, Richard B. Morris is only partially correct. There was in fact precedent for White Slavery in Common Law but it was little cited in the colonies, perhaps because such former legal citation would have exposed the indentures racket for what it was.
Old English law did have something of a White Slave code, based on the concept of "villeinage" from which we derive the words villain and villainy with their now blatantly pejorative connotations. With the emergence of the English Common Law (1175‑1225) came the ruse of the writ of novel dissension which dealt with who was qualified to contest land evictions. The aristocrats who drafted the writ established a category of juridical unfreedom known as villein tenure which could defeat any English peasant's claim to land, no matte how long his family had held it.
At first villain denoted a White peasant (from the French Carolingian word vilani, a general description for a peasant dependent upon a lord), and the sense of evil that was attached to the word was largely a construct of the rich who would naturally want their world order to be seen as good and therefore any White kinsman enslaved was seen as "justly deserving" of such treatment and hence had to have been bad, evil, a "villain."
It was as important for the English nobility to make this claim about English slave "villeins" as it was for American colonial merchants to label the Whites they enslaved as criminals and traitors or in the common parlance found in original documents of the period, as "rubbish and dung." The Oxford Dictionary gives the following definition of villainy,
"The condition or state of a villein, bondage, servitude, henace base or ignoble condition." (Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p. 3,631)
In other words, the connection between villaniny and evil first came about from a premeditated association between the condition of being a slave and the state of being an evil person. Who is it that would benefit from stigmatizing White Slaves as evil beings? who but the slave holding aristocracy who could then justify any crime they committed against these "villains." Much of the common understanding of the land swindles perpetrated against the English villein class is derived from the legal treatise, De legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, commonly known as Bracton after Sir Henry de Bracton.
The Bracton code equates the English villein with the Roman servus or slve. The Bracton code denies all rights to the villein by placing him in the same category as the Roman servus. Villeinage was considered a hereditary condition:
"Neither of Duke, earl or lord by ancestry but of villain (vylayne) people." (St. Werburge, Bradshaw, 1513) "Thou are of vylayn blood on thy father's side." (Caxton, 1483)
This propaganda‑labeling of enslaved Whites may be better understood if we examine the original meaning and the subsequent connotations associated with the use of another name, that of "churl." We call someone a churl today who is badly bred or bad acting. Yet according to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, originally a churl was an English "freeman of the lowest rank" ‑‑ the poorest White who was not a slave. It is no coincidence that the names for White Slaves and White poor came to be linked with evil and bad breeding as part of a self‑serving process of appellation manufactured by their rulers. A revealing display of the opprobrium associated with both words is exhibited in a description by Sir Walter Scott,
"Sweeping from the earth some few hundreds of villain churles, who are born but to plow it."
The association of these names with what Scott views as a degraded existence of plowing the earth is a holdover from plutocratic ancient Roman philosophy.
"Romans considered manual occupations...as degrading in themselves..." (William Phillips, p. 28)
Since these were associated in the aristocratic mind with the work of slaves. Up until recently, European history was largely written from the point of view of institutional Churchianity, the wealthy, the aristocracy and the merchant class, at the expense of the laboring people. Rodney Hilton further cautions that,
"historians risk falling into the trap dug for the peasants by the lawyers, for most of our evidence about freedom and serfdom depends on evidence which is a by‑product of the legal...process." (Freedom and Villeinage in England, Past and Present, Hilton, July, 1965, p. 6)
The creation of an exculpatory nomenclature rigged to justify the depredations of the ruling class against the White poor by establishing an intrinsic relationship between being poor and being evil, is a masterstroke of propaganda. It leads to the internalization of these negative images in the minds of the White poor themselves.
Some memory of these connections and connotations were no doubt extant in the minds of colonial Americans and has surely contributed to the dearth of material on those who survived or were descended from White Slavery. In Britain and Europe under the laws of villeinage, survivors and descendants of White Slavery were susceptible to discrimination before the law and even reenslavement:
"The former (White) Slaves, now serfs, might gradually shift into another legal category over several generations, or the taint of servility might lose much of its practical meaning as they became de facto independent, but...the descendants of (White) Slaves were for centuries considered unfree in a way that other people in equally dependent economic positions were not." (Karras, p. 36)
This taint, which the ruling class cleverly asserted was the result of some hereditary defect among White Slaves, has been applied to many nations of White peoples from the Slavs to the Irish, Welsh and Scottish. The stigma attached to White "slave blood" by the rulers served as an effective device for:
1). Keeping such descendants from seeking redress for past wrongs.
2). Being ashamed to identify their heritage and background in the form of written memorialization.
3). Serving as a neat propaganda justification for the continuing privileges and governance of the aristocracy.
This pattern is occasionally overturned when we examine unfiltered folk literature or music. For example, in such 13th century Icelandic folk sagas as the Frostbroeora and the Laxdoela, White Slaves are portrayed as fair and Nordic in general appearance and possessed of great personal courage and honor. Biblical provisions for bound and hired labor were cited to justify White Slavery in early America, on the grounds that it was Scriptural and therefore humane. The Body of Liberties of 1641, the first law code of Puritan New England, established four categories of servitude, citing Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:39‑55 and Deuteronomy 23:15‑16. However, had those Scriptures actually been obeyed, the enslavement of Christians (the heirs of the Israelites) would never have taken place. Deuteronomy mandates that a bondsman is not to be oppressed. Exodus decrees that the term of service will under no circumstance exceed six years. Leviticus forbids forced slavery for the payment of debts as well as child slavery. (cf. 25:40‑41) The permanent enslavement of racial aliens and their children was permitted. (Leviticus 25:45‑46, Exodus 21:4, which destroys the whole basis of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address)
Abraham Lincoln's use of the Bible, which according to his law partner he did not believe in, to justify rights for negro slaves, is another example of this masterful politician's distortion of fact. While it is true that Galatians 3:28 contains the famous passage about there being "neither slave nor free...in Christ Jesus," this statement is meant to have only a spiritual application. The passage also contains the statement that there is neither male nor female in Christ, but I rather doubt Paul intended to sanction transvestitism or homosexuality. In Ephesians 6:5 slaves are ordered to obey their masters "with fear and trembling as unto Christ." In considering the Biblical stand on slavery, it is necessary to differentiate Biblical laws concerning the enslavement of aliens and Israelites. The former could be permanent, the latter was to be temporary, even though many who claimed to be the Christian heirs of the Israelites acted otherwise.
In America, those who enslaved Blacks and disparaged the manual laborer generally did not derive their philosophy from Biblical sources, however: that legacy falls in the camp of ancient Rome. (see Classical Antiquity and the Proslavery Argument, Slavery and Abolition, J. Drew Harrington, May 1989) Southern planters would sometimes justify the bondage of the negro with Biblical arguments, but this was usually a rejoinder to abolitionist attacks, rather than the main source of enslavement praxis, it is chiefly from the aristocratic notions of the Romans toward manual labor that the classic mindset of the modern slaver in the West evolved. These concepts differ considerably from the status of the manual laborer in the Bible. Jesus Christ, the "King of Kings," toiled as a carpenter for most of His life.
Then as now, religious hypocrites of "Churchianity," as it more properly may be called, ignored Bible teachings on the subject even as they cited them for purposes of their own justification in enslaving fellow White Christians for pecuniary gain. It should be noted that some individual masters in early America who felt convicted by the Scriptures regulating bonded kinsmen moderated their treatment of White bondsmen accordingly.
In colonial America, White people could be enslaved for such an "offense" as missing church services more than three times or for "prevention of an idle course of life."
In 1640 a Virginia master needed to ensure further labor from his White servants in order to place his investments and land improvements on a more secure basis. He therefore falsely accused a number of his servants of a conspiracy "to run out of the colony and enticing divers others to be actors in the same conspiracy." As a result of his accusation the alleged "runaways" were severely whipped and had their term of forced labor lengthened an additional seven years, to be served "in irons."
This can be regarded as a light sentence in view of the fact that seven years was a standard addition of the term of labor for the crime of running away, or conspiring to do so, to which would then be added, in terms of additional time, the expenses incurred for capture and return of the White to his master, such costs being likely to include rewards, sheriffs and slave‑hunters' bounties and jail fees. These latter were not fixed by law until 1726 and were a source of tremendous abuse by tacking on huge costs to the capture of the runaway and then commanding that the runaway pay for these inflated costs in terms of years of his life in further forced‑labor.
A White Slave who fled or was accused of fleeing often had his term of labor extended fifteen, twenty or even fifty years, as a result. White Slave Lawrence Finny received an additional seven years, eleven months of forced labor for running away, while escaped White Slave William Fisher on being caught, received an additional term of six years and 250 days. (Petitions, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Court of Quarter Sessions, August 1731 and June, 1732)
Just for being absent from the plantation at any time, a White Slave would be forced to undergo one additional year of slavery for every two hours he was absent. (White Servitude, Beckles, p. 84) Starving White Slaves who took extra food from their masters' overflowing larders were enslaved another two years for each commission of that "crime."
Further accusations, infractions and violations added to these additions and in sum amounted to a lifetime of total enslavement and not the allegedly limited, benign White "indentured servitude" our court historians fleetingly refer to on their way to their semester‑long devotion to negro slave studies.
Indeed, one‑half of White "indentured servants" did not live to attain their freedom. Lest anyone think this grim datum refers mainly to Whites enslaved in old age, it actually refers to Whites who were first "indentured" between the ages of 16 and 20. (Bridenbaugh, p. 123) "The truth is," wrote White Slave Edward Hill, "we live in the fearfullest age that ever Christians lived in."
Young white females in bondage were denied the right to marry, a clever device for helping extend their servitude into full‑fledged slavery since the penalty for a woman having a baby out of wedlock while a slave, was an extension of her term of slave labor another two and a half years. A white male slave had at least four years added to his time for having sex with a White female slave or for entering into a compact of marriage with her. Twenty‑three year old Henry Carman, a White slave since he had been kidnapped in London at the age of seventeen, made White Slave Alice Chambers pregnant and received an additional seven years slavery for this "crime." (Johnson, p. 148)
A Virginia law of 1672 recognized that there were masters who had lengthened the enslavement of their White Female Slaves by making them pregnant by the slavemaster himself. No punishment was given to the master for such acts, however. As bad as this may seem it cannot compare with the dreadful fate that awaited the children of the enslaved White mother. The "bastard" or "obscene" children, as they were called, of unmarried White women‑slaves were bound over to the mother's slavemaster for a period of thirty‑one years! This heinous child‑slavery from birth was not modified until 1765 when the Assembly of Virginia declared it to be "an unreasonable severity to such children" and limited the term of bondage for such White Children to a "mere" 21 years for boys and 18 years for girls.
The following is an entry describing one such case of infant‑ enslavement:
"Margaret Micabin servant to Mr. David Crawley having a bastard Child, Mr. Crawley prays the gentlemen of this Vestry to bind out the said Child as they think fit. It is ordered by the Vestry that the Church‑Wardens bind out the said Child named John Sadler born the 26th July last 1720. The foresaid child is by indenture bound unto Mr. David Crawley to serve according to Law." (The Vestry Book and Register of Bristol Parish Virginia, 1720‑1789)
At other times the baby was forcibly separated from the White Slave mother shortly after birth. White woman Sally Brant was enslaved to the wealthy Quaker family of Henry and Elizabeth Drinker. The Quakers were strong campaigners against negro slavery BUT HAD NO QUALMS ABOUT WHITE SLAVERY! When Sally Brant's baby was born in the Drinker's country house. Sally was forced by the Drinkers to return to their main house in Philadelphia, leaving the newborn infant behind with a stranger. The White Slave father of the child was also not allowed to see his baby and the infant subsequently died. Elizabeth Drinker, the wealthy Quaker slaveowner, kept a diary in which she philosophically noted that the death of her White Slave's baby had most likely worked out for the best.
"Unmarried (White) women servants who became pregnant, as did an estimated 20 percent, received special punishment. All had to serve additional years; some had their children taken from them and sold, for a few pounds of tobacco, to another master." (Levine, p. 52)
By 1769 all children born to even free White women who were unmarried were also candidates for enslavement:
"...in 1769...the church wardens were instructed to bind out illegitimate children of free single White women." (Jernegan, p. 180)
Long hours and exposure to disease and the elements were considered part of a first year "seasoning" process it was thought a good White Slave would require. A White Slave would work from sunrise to sunset in the fields and then might be put to work in a shed grinding corn until midnight or one a.m. and expected to return to the fields the next day at dawn. In some southern colonies with extreme heat, as many as 80% of a shipment of White Slaves died in their first year in the New World. Richard Ligon, a traveling writer and eyewitness to White Slavery has written that he saw a White Slave beaten with a cane,
"about the head till the blood has followed for a fault that is not worth speaking of; and yet he must be patient, or worse will follow." (Ligon, p. 44)
How many White tourists today who take winter vacations in such Caribbean islands as Jamaica and Barbados know that they are visiting the site of a gruesome holocaust against poor White people who died by the tens of thousands and were slaves in those islands long before Blacks ever were? Historian Richard Dunn has stated that the early sugar plantations of the British West Indies were nothing more than mass graves for White workers. (Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, p. 302) Four‑fifths of the White slaves sent to the West Indies didn't survive the first year. (Van der Zee, p. 183)
In 1688 a member of the nobility wrote from a British colony in the Caribbean islands to the British government,
"I beg...care for the poor White Servants here, who are used with more barbarous cruelty than if in Algiers. Their bodies and souls are used as if hell commenced here and only continued in the world to come." (Sir Thomas Montgomery to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, August 3, 1688, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1685‑1688, p. 577); "Twenty or more (White) servants laboring under the supervision of an overseer led the most wearisome and miserable lives...if a servant complained, the overseer would beat him; if he resisted, the master might double his time in bondage...the overseers act like those in charge of galley slaves...The cost in (White) lives of such inhuman treatment is incalculable, but it was very, very high." (Bridenbaugh, p. 107; Pere Biet, Voyage, p. 290)
One example of the horrible conditions White Slaves labored under can be seen in the case of the White Slave known to history as Boulton. In 1646 Boulton's master was suspected of cheating a colonial official of a large shipment of cotton. The master asked the White Slave if he would take the blame. If Boulton made the bogus confession in place of his master he was liable to have both his ears cut off by the colonial officials as well as having more time added to his period of bondage.
However Boulton's master promised that he would not only ignore the extra time if Boulton agreed to take the blame for him, but that he would free Goulton from slavery after Boutlton had been punished by the authorities. So desperate was Boulton to be free that Boulton agreed to pretend that his master had told him to give the cotton to the officials, but that instead he had embezzled it for his own use. Both of the White Slave's ears were subsequently cut off. Afterward, his master kept his part of the bargain and Boulton was emancipated.
"Some planters grew so desperate for help that they would ransom White captives from the Indians, returning them to a servitude which, according to one complainant, 'differeth not from her slavery with the Indians." (Van der Zee, p. 85)
"Fugitive Slave" laws, enacted to facilitate the apprehension and punishment of runaway White Slaves is another suppressed aspect of the history of early America. William Hening in his 13 volume Statutes at Large of Virginia records that the punishment for runaway Whites was to be "branded in the cheek with the letter R." they also often had one or both of their ears cut off. In 1640 the General Court of Virginia ruled that two White slaves,
"principal actors and contrivers in a most dangerous conspiracy by attempting to run out of the country and (by) enticing divers others to be actors in said Conspiracy,"
be whipped, branded and required to serve the colony an additional seven years in leg irons.
In the stock scenes from Hollywood films liek Glory the negro slave's shirt is dramatically lifted to reveal a back full of hideous scars from repeated shippings. This brings tears to the eyes of one of his White New England commanders in the fictional film Glory. Yet in reality, among the White soldiers in that scene there would have been more than a few who also bore massive scars from a whip or who had seen the scars of the lash on their White fathers' backs. The current image of Blacks as predominantly the ones who bore the scars of the whiplash is in error.
On September 20, 1776 the Continental Congress Authorized the whipping of unruly American enlisted men with up to one hundred lashes. There are cases on record of rank and file White troops receiving up to two hundred‑fifty whip‑lashes! (Reflections of 'Democracy' in Revolutionary South Carolina, in The Southern Common People, Walter J. Fraser, Jr., p. 16)� This incredible savagery represented the level of treatment poor Whites sometimes experienced at the hands of the authorities in 18th century America,
"...the officer class...came to use the lash unsparingly (on)...unpropertied... recruits...the poor white rank and file..." (Frasher, p. 17)
White slaves,
"found themselves powerless as individuals, without honor or respect, and driven into commodity production not by any inner sense of moral duty but by the outer stimulus of the whip." (White Servitude, Beckles, p. 5);
"In 1744 provision was made for whipping escaped servants through the parish, after proof had been made before a justice of the peace that they were fugitives...Dennis Mahoon was sentenced to be stripped naked to his wait and receive thirty‑nine lashes upon his naked back.' This was his punishment for a second offense in persuading fellow servants to run away..." (Warren B. Smith, p. 76);
"(White) servants were tortured for confessions (fire was inserted between their fingers and knotted ropes were put about their necks)..." (Rebels and Reactionaries, Beckles, p. 14)
Not only White Slaves were brutalized but also those who dared to aid them in gaining their freedom. The image of whites being hunted, whipped and even jailed for assisting fellow Whites out of slavery is completely absent from modern textbook accounts of slavery in America. Those who helped White Slaves run away in colonial America were known as "enticers" and received 30 lashes with a whip if caught. Merely to counsel a White Slave to seek his freedom was considered by the colonial courts as illegal interference with the property rights of the rich and resulted in criminal penalties. Hening states that to reduce the number of runaway White slaves a pass was required for any person leaving the Virginia colony and masters of ships were put under severe penalty for taking any White Slave to freedom. Advertisements regularly appeared in early American newspapers for fugitive White Slaves. One such wanted notice described a slave who had run off as having a,
"long visage of lightish complexion, and thin‑flaxen hair; sometimes ties his hair behind with a string, a very proud fellow...very impudent..." (Jernegan, p. 51)
Notices of runaway White Slaves in South Carolina newspapers included specific warnings against harboring or assisting the fugitive White Slaves and listed the statutory criminal penalties for doing so. Certificates of freedom were required to be carried on the person of freed White Slaves at all times. All White workers and poor in colonial America were regarded as suspect, guilty of being fugitive slaves unless they could "give an intelligent account of themselves" or show their certificate; a very convenient arrangement for enslaving free White men and women in America by claiming they were fugitive White Slaves. White Slaves who ran away found safe haven in portions of North Carolina which became known in Virginia as the "Refuge of Runaways." The mountains of Appalachia also served as hideouts for fugitive White Slaves. The hunting of White slaves became a lucrative practice. In Virginia in 1699 persons who successfully hunted a White Slave received 1000 lbs. of tobacco, paid for by the future labor that would be extracted form the White Slave. Richard B. Morris describes the appearance of fugitive White Slaves:
"One culprit was described as having a string of bells (fastened) around his neck which made a hideous jingling and discordant noise, another wore an iron collar, and others bore the scars of recent whippings on their backs." (Government and Labor in Early America, Morris, p. 435)
The history of "racist White toleration" of the hunting of negro slaves as well as the controversy surrounding the capture of fugitive black slaves in the North just prior to the Civil War is incomprehensible without being placed in the context of the body of Fugitive Slave Law that was first established for use against White Slaves. In colonial America the fugitive White slave was considered the property of the master and the legal right to recovery was universally recognized.
The Articles of the New England Confederation provided that where a White Slave fled his master for another colony in the Confederation, upon certification by one judge in the colony to which the White Slave had fled, the fugitive would be delivered back into slavery. Classed with "thieves and other criminals," the fugitive White Slave could be pursued "by hue and cry" on land and over water, and men and boats were often impressed in the hunt for him. Magistrates, sheriffs or constables were authorized by statute to whip the fugitive white Man severely before returning him to his master, twenty to thirty‑nine lashes being the usual sentence imposed [Blacks were not commonly treated the same]. Massachusetts authorized that any White Slave who had been previously whipped for running away was to be whipped again just for being found outside his master's farm without a note of permission from the slavemaster.
Between February 12, 1732 and December 20, 1735, the South Carolina Gazette carried 110 wanted notices for fugitive Black slaves and forty‑one notices for fugitive White Slaves. The claims of masters in one colony upon the fugitive White Slaves in another jurisdiction were allowed from the beginning of colonial settlement in America. The U.S. Constitution upheld the colonial fugitive White Slave laws in its Article IV, section 2:
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the Laws thereof escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on a claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due."
This law was enacted by Whites against fellow White people and allowed White slavery to continue in some parts of America right up until the Civil War. The first legal blow to the system of White bondage didn't occur until 1821 when an Indiana court began to enforce the Ordinance of 1787 prohibiting White Slavery in the old "Northwest Territory." The decision cited the Constitution of the state of Indiana which in turn drew its base from the 1787 ordinance in holding all White Slavery null, void and unenforceable. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution dealt a fatal blow to White Slavery. The enslavement of Whites in one form or another has proved very durable. bound White servitude for orphans and destitute children on contracts of indenture still occurred in New York State up until 1923 when they were finally banned.
During the American Revolution the Continental Congress, desperate for fighting manpower, permitted the recruitment of White Slaves into the army, which was tantamount to granting them their freedom. This was not particularly radical however, in view of the fact that "four score and seven years" before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Lord Dunmore, the Royal governor of Virginia, freed the negroes in his jurisdiction in the hope they would join the "Ethiopian Regiment" he had formed and fight the patriots. (Ronald Hoffman, pp. 281‑282)
In 1765, a fourteen year old Irish lad, Matthew Lyon, was orphaned when his father was executed along with other leaders of the "White Boys," an Irish farmer's association organized to resist British government confiscation of their farmlands. The boy was enslaved and transported to America where he was purchased by a wealthy Connecticut merchant. Later he was made to endure the shame of being sold to another master in exchange of two deer
"which was a source of no end of scoffs and jeers" at Lyon's "irreparable disgrace of being sold for a pair of stags." (Life and Services of Matthew Lyon, Pliny H. White, p. 6)
By the spring of 1775 Matthew Lyon had taken advantage of the manpower shortage of the American Revolution and joined an obscure, rag‑tag band of guerrilla fighters. Lyon and his fellow rebels were destined to enter the annals of historical fame when not long afterward they appeared out of nowhere at Ticonderoga in northern New York where their commander, Ethan Allen, demanded the surrender of the mighty British fort. Matthew Lyon had joined the Green Mountain boys. "Eighty five of us," Lyon would later recall with pride, "took from one hundred and forty British veterans the Fort Ticonderoga."
The guns, cannon and ammunition obtained at Ticonderoga would supply the American army throughout the war. One of the founders of the state of Vermont, he was elected to its assembly and later to the U.S. Congress, where the eponymous firebrand wrestled a Federalist on the floor of the House of Representatives. He was the first American to be indicted under President John Adams' Sedition Act, for publishing material against central Federal government and Adams. Forced to run for Congress from a jail cell, Lyon was overwhelmingly re‑elected and returned to a tumultuous hero's welcome in Vermont.
The colonies of Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland declared White Slaves eligible to enlist in the Continental Army without their master's consent. Though such decrees had the effect of granting the freedom of those slaves who fought, the American Revolution did not result in a prohibition of the institution of White Slavery itself.
In rhetoric it was conceded that White Slavery was "contrary to the idea of liberty" but the system remained profitable and many Southern and middle colony White Slaves had not been allowed to join the Revolutionary Army and they remained in bondage. The importation of White Slaves was resumed on nearly as large a scale after the American Revolution as it had existed before. Fear of rebellion by White Slaves led to the passage of a Virginia law to suppress
"unlawful meetings" and directed that "all masters of families be enjoyned to take especial care that servants do not depart from their houses on Sundays or any other days without particular lycence from them."
Individual acts of rebellion by White Slaves were constant and many slavemasters were killed.
"...unrest among White servants was more or less chronic." (Bridenbaugh, p. 108)
In the Caribbean colonies White Slaves revolted by burning the sugar cane of the slavemaster "to the utter ruin and undon of their Masters."
Lured to colonial America with the promise of teaching job, Thomas Hellier was instead enslaved as a field worker. That betrayal combined with the viciousness of his slavemaster's wife led him to kill the slavemaster's entire family with an axe in 1678. Hellier was believed to have been inspired by Bacon's Rebellion two years before.
In 1676 Nathaniel Bacon led an uprising in Virginia. A small army of former White Slaves and fugitive White Slaves joined with the 30 year old Indian fighter Bacon against the House of Burgesses and the Governor, sparked by anger at the government's apathy in the face of warring Indians and their own penurious condition after having been cheated out of the "head" acreage they were promised. There was great fear among the circle of the royal governor, William Berkeley, that the White Slaves of the entire region would rise with Bacon and "carry all beyond remedy to destruction."
Bacon's rebels burned down the city of Jamestown, plundered the plantations and expelled the royal Governor. Bacon died suddenly, allegedly of dysentery, on October 26 at the height of the insurrection, "...an incredible number of the meanest (poorest) of people were everywhere armed to assist him and his cause," and these fought on through the winter, until the last of them were captured or killed by January of 1677. Other White Slave rebellions included the risings of 1634 which took 800 troops to put down, and 1647 in which 18 leaders of the White revolt were tortured and hung.
The rulers of Barbados even passed a proclamation in 1649,
"And act for an Annual Day of Thanksgiving for our deliverance from the last Insurrection of servants."
Richard Ligon was an eyewitness to this White Slave plot on Barbados:
"Their sufferings being grown to a great height, and their daily complainings to one another...being spread throughout the Island; at the last, some amongst them, whose spirits were not able to endure such slavery, resolved to break through it, or die in the act; and so conspired with some others...so that a day was appointed to fall upon their Masters and cut all their throats..." (Ligon, p. 45)
And in Virginia:
"After mid‑century the number of runaway (White) servants increased steadily, and in 1661 and 1663, servants in two separate (Virginia) counties took up arms and demanded freedom. The first episode occurred in York County, where servants complained of 'hard usage'...Isaac Friend, their leader, planned to bring together about forty servants. They would then 'get arms' and march through the country, raising recruits by urging servants 'who would be for liberty, and free from bondage,' to join them. Once a large enough force had been aroused, the rebels would go through the country and kill those that made any opposition, and they would either be free or die for it." (Levine, p. 56)
More White Slave "plots" and revolts occurred in 1686 and 1692 including a rebellion the "Independents," an insurgent group of White Protestant slaves and freedmen who revolted against Maryland's Catholic theocracy. In 1721 White slaves were arrested while attempting to seize an arsenal at Annapolis, Maryland, the arms to be used in an uprising against the Planters. In Florida in 1768 White Slaves revolted at the Turnbull plantation in New Smyrna. The government needed two ships full of troops and cannon to put down the revolt.
"If the servant class threw up one radical hero, it was Cornelius Bryan, an Irish servant, imprisoned for mutiny on countless occasions and regularly whipped by the hangman for assembling servants and publicly making anti‑planter remarks." (Rebels and Reactionaries, Beckles, p. 18)
The colonial powers were not adverse to call on unlikely policemen to suppress White slave revolts: Blacks. BLACKS WERE ADMITTED TO THE COLONIAL MILITIA RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICING WHITE SLAVES! The aristocratic planters had felt the necessity to "arm part of their blackmen" to assist in suppressing White Slave revolts. (Rebels and Reactionaries, Beckles, p. 17) Armed Black militias patrolled the Carolinas from the end of the 17th century to at least 1710 when Thomas Nairne reported that Blacks continued to be members of armed colonial militias organized by local governments.
These White rebellions foreshadowed the later switch from reliance on masses of White slaves to greater and greater importation of Blacks because of their pliability and passivity. But throughout the 17th and much of the 18th century, the tobacco, sugar and cotton colonies maintained a sizable White Slave population. Negro Slaves simply cost too much to import and purchase. Whites were cheaper and more expendable, until they began to fight.
"...planter, especially in the South, eventually elected to replace the restive White Servants with the more identifiable and presumably less criminal black slaves." (Van der Zee, p. 266)
The toughness and sturdiness of the White Slaves who not only fought in Bacon's Rebellion but took the worst duty in the French and Indian wars and the American Revolution may have been due in part to the presence of convicts in their ranks.
Not all colonists looked with favor on the reliance upon White convict‑slave‑labor to build America. Benjamin Franklin totally opposed White Slavery and supposedly referred to White convict‑slaves shipped to America as "human serpents." Yet when attempts were made to abolish White Slavery and thereby stop the flow of both kidnapped and convict labor into colonial America, the measures were generally voted down, as when in 1748 Virginia's Burgesses upheld the Act of 1705, which legitimized the White Slavery under a veil of legal phraseology. White convict‑labor was used for the very harshest and life‑threatening jobs others would not do, such as fighting the Indians and French in Arctic conditions with few, if any, firearms.
Benjamin Franklin had been apprenticed at age 12 to his printer‑ brother, the term of his indenture was to have been for nine years, but he managed to have his contract voided while his brother was in jail for seditious publishing. As a young man, Franklin was once mistaken for a fugitive White Slave, "and in danger of being taken up on that suspicion."
The notion that Whites are particularly "hardhearted" and "racist" because they upheld a fugitive slave law against Blacks is specious when considered in light of the enactments against rebellious and fugitive White Slaves. If a tiny clique of wealthy Whites didn't feel sorry for their own people thus enslaved, and hunted them when they escaped or revolted, why would anyone expect them to exempt negroes from the same treatment?
Sometimes the reverse was true. Whites like Harriet Beecher Stowe were solely concerned with the plight of Blacks AND AVOIDED THE SLAVERY OF WHITES TO DENY THE OPPRESSION OF WHITES. Like the wealthy White elite of the 1990s who do nothing for the White poor but campaign tirelessly for the rights of colored people. The Quakers of colonial Philadelphia were early advocates of Black rights and abolition of negro servitude EVEN AS THEY WHIPPED AND BRUTALIZED THE WHITE SLAVES THEY CONTINUED TO OWN.
HARRIET BEECHER STOWE WAS ONE OF THE GREAT HYPOCRITES OF THE 19th CENTURY, A PIOUS FRAUD WHOSE LEGACY OF MALIGNANT HATRED FOR HER OWN KIND HAS INFECTED MANY ANOTHER WHITE MAN AND WOMAN OF THIS DAY. During her triumphal 1853 tour of Britain in the wake of the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Stowe was the guest of Duchess of Sutherland, a woman of vast wealth who had an interest in the "betterment of the negro."
The Sutherland wealth was based in part on one of the most criminal land‑grabs in British history. The Sutherlands had seized the ancient holdings of the traditional clans of Scotland and burned the Highland crofters off their lands, resulting in pauperism and in many cases, outright starvation of Scottish women and children. (The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign, Henry C. Carey, pp. 204‑209; The Highland Clearances, John Prebble, pp. 288‑295) At one point the Sutherlands even hired armed guards to prevent famine‑stricken Scottish Highlander "rabble" from catching fish in the Sutherland's well‑stocked salmon and trout rivers. (Prebble, p. 293)� When Harriet Beecher Stowe returned to America she wrote a glowing account of the Sutherlands in her travel book Sunny Memories, specifically praising them for their "enlightened land policies" in Scotland, which she described as
"an almost sublime instance of the benevolent employment of superior wealth and power in shortening the struggles of advancing civilization." (Cunliffe, p. 18, Prebble, p. 292)
In response to Stowe's appalling whitewash of the crimes committed against the Scottish Highlanders, a London newspaper described Uncle Tom's Cabin as a "downright imposture" and "ranting, canting nonsense." (Cunliffe, ibid) White Slaves were punished with merciless whippings and beatings. The records of Middlesex County, Virginia relate how a slavemaster confessed;
"that he hath most uncivilly and inhumanly beaten a (White) female with great knotted whipcord, so that the poor servant is a lamentable spectacle to behold."
A case in the country from 1655 relates how a White Slave was "fastened by a lock with a chain to it" by his master and tied to a shop door and "whipped till he was very bloody." The beating and whipping of White Slaves resulted in so many being beaten to death that in 1662 the Virginia Assembly passed a law prohibiting the private burial of White Slaves because such burial helped to conceal their murders and encouraged further atrocities against other White Slaves. A grievously ill White Slave was forced by his master to dig his own grave, since there was little likelihood that the master would obtain any more labor from him. The White Slave's owner,
"made him sick and languishing as he was, dig his own grave, in which he was laid a few days afterwards, the others being too busy to dig it, having their hands full in attending to the tobacco." (Journal of a Voyage to New York and a Tour of Several American Colonies, Jaspar Danckaerts and Peter Sluyter, 1679‑1680)
In New England, Nicholas Weekes and his wife deliberately cut off the toes of their White Slave who subsequently died. Marmaduke Pierce in Massachusetts severely beat a White Slave boy with a rod and finally beat him to death. Pierce was not punished for the murder. In 1655 in the Plymouth Colony a master named Mr. Latham, starved his 14 year old White Slave boy, beat him and left him to die outdoors in sub‑zero temperatures. The dead boy's body showed the markings of repeated beatings and his hands and feet were frozen solid.
COLONIAL RECORDS ARE FULL OF THE DEATHS BY BEATING, STARVATION AND EXPOSURE OF WHITE SLAVES in addition to tragic accounts such as one of the New Jersey White Slave boy who drowned himself rather than continue to face the unmerciful beatings of his master. (American Weekly Mercury, September 2‑9, 1731) Henry Smith beat to death an elderly White Slave and raped two of his female White Slaves in Virginia. John Dandy beat to death his White Slave boy whose black and blue body was found floating down a creek in Maryland. Pope Alvey beat his White Slave girls Alice Sanford to death in 1663. She was reported to have been "beaten to a Jelly." Joseph Fincher beat his White slave Jeffery Haggman to death in 1664. John Grammer ordered his plantation overseer to beat his White Slave 100 times with a cat‑o'‑nine‑tails. The White Slave died from his wounds. The overseer, rather than expressing regret at the death he inflicted stated,
"I could have givne him tenn times more."
There are thousands of cases in the colonial archives of inhuman mistreatment, cruelty, beatings and the entire litany of Uncle Tom's Cabin horrors administered to hapless White Slaves.
In Australia, White Slave Joseph Mansbury had been whipped repeatedly to such an extent that his back appeared,
"quite bare of flesh, and his collar bones were exposed looking very much like two Ivory Polished horns. It was with difficulty that we could find another place to flog him. Tony [Chandler, the overseer] suggested to me that we had better do it on the soles of his feet next time." (The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes, p. 115)
Hughes describes the fate of White slaves as one of "prolonged and hideous torture." One overseer in Australia whose specialty was shipping White Slaves would say while applying his whip on their backs.
"Another half pound mate, off the beggar's ribs."
The overseer's face and clothes were described as having the appearance of,
"a mincemeat chopper, being covered in flesh from the victim's body." (Hughes, p. 115)
In colonial America, in one case, the sole punishment for the murder of a White Slave (explained as an accident) consisted of the master and his wife being forbidden from owning any White Slaves for a period of three years. A White girl enslaved by a woman called "Mistress Ward," was whipped so badly that she died from it. On the finding of a jury that such action was "unreasonable and unchristian like" Mistress Ward was fined 300 pounds of tobacco.
"...it was no easy task to secure the conviction of a master for the murder of his (White) servant...Convictions of masters for the murder or manslaughter of their servants were definitely the exception. In a preponderance of such trials they were acquitted or let off lightly, often in the face of incontrovertible evidence of guilt." (Morris, pp. 485 and 487)
In 1678 Charles Grimlin, a wealthy American colonial planter, was found guilty of murdering a female White Slave he owned. He was pardoned and set free. In the same year a White woman "of low origins," killed her husband, a man of some wealth. The same judge who pardoned Grimlin sentenced the White woman (who was probably a descendant of White Slaves) to be "burned alive according to the law." Nor should it be concluded that because some trials were held for those masters who murdered their White Slaves that this reflected a higher justice than that given to Black slaves.
In thousands of cases of homicide against poor Whites there were not trials whatsoever, murdered White Slaves were hurriedly buried by their masters so that the resulting decomposition would prohibit any enquiry into the cause of their deaths. Others just "disappeared" or died from "accidents" or committed "suicide." Many of the high number of so‑called "suicides" of White Slaves took place under suspicious circumstances, but in every single case the slavemaster was found innocent of any crime. (For acquittals of masters in Virginia or instances of failure to prosecute them for the murder of White slaves, see Virginia General Court Minutes, pp. 22‑24, VMYH, XIX, 388) At the same time, White Slaves, White Servants and poor White working men were forbidden to serve on a jury. Only Whites who owned property could do so. Judges were recruited solely from the propertied class. When the few cases regarding the torture and murder of white Slaves reached a court it was not difficult to predict the outcome.
A White orphan boy was kidnapped in Virginia and enslaved under the guise of "teaching him a trade." The boy was able to get the Rappahannock County Court to take notice of his slaver:
"...an orphan complained on July 2, 1685 that he was held in a severe and hard servitude illegally and that he was taken by one Major Hawkins 'under pretense of giving him learning.' The case came before the court on August 2, but the justices decided that he must continue in the service of his present master." (Jernegan, pp. 159‑160);
"They possessed one right, to complain to the planter‑magistrates concerning excessively violent abuse. But this right, which by custom was also available to black slaves in some societies, had little or no mitigating effect on the overall nature of their treatment on the estates." (White Servitude, Beckles, p. 5. For information on blacks allowed to accuse White slavemasters in court and who were freed from slavery as a result of hearings before White judges, see the Minutes of Council of March 10, 1654 in the Lucas Manuscripts, reel 1, f. 92, Bridgetown Public Library, Barbados)
Constables and local magistrates in Virginia to whom mistreated White slaves might appeal were often the same men who enslaved and assaulted them. It should be recalled that the killing and maiming of White Slaves was visited upon them by kinsmen of the same race and religion as their slaves, making the callous disregard for their human rights doubly heinous. White Slaves were whipped, broken on the wheel, shot, hung or even burned alive. (The Tragicall Relation of the Virginia Assembly, 1624 in the Library of Congress)
The whole apparatus of the institution of human slavery in English‑speaking America, which has been sparingly memorialized in the voluminous literature on negro slavery, was first put into place in the enslavement of Whites who were kidnapped in their native land, died on board ship, suffered child slavery and separation of parents from children forever; endured fugitive slave‑laws, the banning of White Slave meetings and severe and extreme corporal punishment, sometimes unto death.
THE MOTIVATION FOR THE COVER-UP OF THE EXTENT OF WHITE SLAVERY BY ESTABLISHMENT‑ FUNDED AND APPROVED HOUSE SCHOLARS IS OBVIOUS. TO ADMIT THE TRUE HISTORY OF WHITE SLAVERY AND RECORD IT FAITHFULLY IN MODERN HISTORY IS TO FURNISH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT WHITE SKIN DOES NOT NECESSARILY EMBODY POWER OF STATUS; that the "poor White," "redneck" of the 1990s who is asked to subsidize with his taxes and make sacrifices in his living wage and job prospects so that Blacks may be "compensated for slavery." IN REALITY OWES NOBODY FOR ANYTHING!
A 1679 colonial census of Whites who fled slavery to scratch out an existence as subsistence and tenant farmers shows that they had to flee to the worst land where they existed in extreme poverty, forming yeoman peasant communities in the hills. It is instructive to note that this White yeomanry was mocked and scorned by both the wealthy White planter elite as well as the negroes.
Rich, White plantation owners joined with the negroes in insulting White Slaves and poor White people, referring to them as "poor‑white earthscratching scum," "redshanks," "redlegs" [forerunner of the "redneck" racial insult current nowadays], "Hill Billys" and "Scotland Johnnies." "The servants were regarded by the planters as 'white trash.'" (Capitalism and Slavery, Eric Williams, p. 17) White Slaves were taunted in the West Indies by Blacks who would chant the ditty, "Yella hair, speckly face and dey feet brick red" at them. [The epithet "redshanks" developed into the name redlegs which has since become a term for all survivors and descendants of White Slaves in the Caribbean region.
Various merchants and aristocrats of the 18th and 19th centuries despised the independence of these survivors of White Slavery when they encountered them in the British West Indies. The chief hallmark of the redlegs has been their absolute refusal to interbreed with the negroes and their independent subsistence lifestyle of fishing and gardening. Her is a typical 19th century description of them by an aristocrat:
"...that lowest of all beings, the 'redshanks.' The latter were miserable and degraded White Men who, priding themselves on their Caucasian origin, looked with contempt upon the African race." (Sheppard, p. 3)
In 1654 Henry Whistler called the White slaves of Barbados "rubbish, rogues and whores." (Journal of the West India Expedition) In England they had been referred to by Edmund Burke as a "swinish multitude," by Samuel Johnson as "rabble" and by Sir Josiah Child as "loose, vagrant...vicious...people."
While the public articulation of such negative epithets against Black people as "nigger" is regarded as a sacrilegious incitement to "hate crimes," hateful terms of abuse of White people such as "redneck" are gleefully used in newspapers and television today to express the contempt with which the corporate elite openly hold White working and poor people.
It is a travesty of historiography that out of deference to the vast political house‑of‑cards that has been built upon the myth that only Blacks were merchandised in the Atlantic lave trade, historians have failed to consistently describe White Chattel by the scientifically accurate term for their condition, THAT OF SLAVE. By avoiding this description, many academics have perpetuated the propaganda of the plutocracy which inflicted these horrors upon White humanity. Powerful colonial land companies motivated by gigantic profits were loath to admit truths subversive of the fictions which permitted the smooth functioning of "business as usual." The label given the White laborer in bondage was crucial to a correct understanding of his condition.
In the founding era of colonial America, both White and black slaves were referred to as "servants." Once the term slavery came into universal usage (a word derived from the enslavement of Slavic peoples), objective observers of the time who were without mercenary ties to the traffic in White "servants" called them slaves:
"Contemporary observers described it as 'White Slavery' and referred to indentured servants as 'White Slaves.'" (Beckles, p. 71)
Some who in England lived fine and brave,
Was there like horses forc'd to trudge and slave.
Some view'd our Limbs turned us around,
Examining like Horses we were sound.
Some felt our hands others our legs and Feet,
And made us walk to see we were compleat,
Some view'd our Teeth to see if they was good,
And fit to Chaw our hard and homely food.
No shoes nor stocking had I for to wear
Nor hat, nor cap, my hands and feet went bare.
Thus dressed unto the fields I did go,
Among Tobacco plants all day to hoe.
Till twelve or one o'clock a grinding corn,
And must be up at day break in the morn.
For I was forc'd to work while I could stand,
Or hold the hoe within my feeble hands.
Forc'd from Friends and Country go go...
Void of all Relief...Sold for a Slave.
From the writing of White Slave John Lawson, 1754. (Quoted in Van Der Zee, Bound Over)
"Honored Father: '...O Dear Father...I am sure you'll pity your distressed daughter. What we unfortunate English people suffer here is beyond the probability of you in England to conceive. Let it suffice that I am one of the unhappy number toiling day and night, and very often in the horse's druggery, with only the comfort of hearing me called, 'You, bitch, you did not do half enough.' Then I am tied up and whipped to that degree that you's not serve an animal. I have scarce anything but Indian corn and salt to eat and that even begrudged. Nay, MANY NEGROES ARE BETTER USED...after slaving after Master's pleasure, what rest we can get is to wrap ourselves up in a blanket and lay upon the ground. This is the deplorable condition your poor Betty endures..." (Public Record Office, London, England, High Court of Admiralty, 30:258; No. 106)
WAY BACK
Put a stop to socialism‑communism‑illuminati! The citizens of Texas, as well as the citizens of the other states of the Union, still have the authority to alter or abolish their amended constitutions and put the originals back in force. Our forefathers provided for it:
"FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintneance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self‑government, unimpaired to all the States." (Article I, Sec. 1, Bill of Rights, Texas Const. (1876))
Then the proviso to change the government is provided in the very next Section:
"INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERN�MENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO ALTER, REFORM, OR ABOLISH THEIR GOVERNMENT IN SUCH MANNER AS THEY MAY THINK EXPEDIENT." (Article I, Sec. 2, Texas Const)
These words, or similar, are found in most of the original, and even many of the current, state constitutions. The citizens have the right by convention to RE‑ESTABLISH THE REPUBLICS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM US BY STEALTH AND DECEPTION. The citizens have the absolute right to put the original state constitutions and the republics their fathers formed back into full force and effect. The citizens have the right to put the Christian Common Law principles of our Father's Laws back at the Head of Government. Everybody has their own opinions about what is wrong with government, but nobody, especially the politicians, seem to know what to do about it. This will be the last chance we will have to avoid a total breakdown of the Christian form of government that the founders of the several states established!
The conspirators ("From the days of Adam (Spartacus) Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman. This world‑wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing...There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international, and for the most part, atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one: it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders." (Winston Churchill, Sunday Illustrated Herald, London, England, February 8, 1920)) who seek a socialist‑communist republic have even gone so far as to remove the set boundary lines from the state constitutions. Very few of the current state constitutions still retain the descriptions of the state boundaries contained in the originals.
In some states the legislature has the authority to completely abolish the state boundaries by statute, by interstate compact, or with the consent of Congress. This is exactly what the socialists‑communists would eventually like to do since state boundaries only have meaning in the Christian Common Law Republic and have no real meaning in an international socialist‑ com�munist form of republic. Or, maybe they already have done it through the Social Security Act.
"The Soviet of Nationalities is elected by the citizens of the USSR voting by Union Republics, Autonomous Republics, Autonomous Regions, and National Areas on the basis of twenty five deputies from each Union Republic, eleven deputies from each Autonomous Republic, five deputies from each Autonomous Region, and one deputy from each National Area." (Ch. III, Art. 35, USSR Constitution)
No longer can the Christian citizens, in the states, trust their elected officials. They must act in their own interest and restore their Christian Constitutions. The White People of the respective states have the vested right to alter or abolish the present constitutions and to replace them with the necessary safeguards to further our Christian Republics. By calling for a state convention of the "People," which does not require consent from the legislature, or any other branch of government for that matter, this can be accomplished.
RESTORE AMERICA TO ITS FORMER CHRISTIAN STATUS
The most striking of the Mosaic Laws [God's Laws], which Christ endorsed, when He came "to fulfill."
"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself..." (Leviticus 19:34)
This Scripture is given an affirmation in the Constitution; in the cases of Meyer vs. Nebraska and Bartels vs. Iowa, the Supreme Court said:
"The protection of the Constitution extends to all, ‑‑ to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue."
In Leviticus 19:35, we find:
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure."
And in the case of Truax vs. Reich, the Supreme Court held:
"Aliens cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws."
Therefore, the Constitution, like the Mosaic Law, provides that the stranger within our gates, who offends against our people, may be returned to his native land; but while he is here he must be treated justly; he must be accorded "the equal protection of the laws;" that the inalienable rights bestowed by his Creator must be respected. Many state constitutions have a preamble which reads much the same as that of Texas:
"Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution." (Preamble, Constitution of the State of Texas)
The "Original" Constitution not only followed the Bible in requiring that justice be done to the stranger within our gates, but it also followed the Divine Law in protecting our own people against foreign domination. The provision that the President must be a "natural born citizen" is a statement of the Mosaic Law, which stated:
"No foreigner shall rule over you."
The contribution of Christianity to the formation of our "Original" Republican Government can be seen in the formation of that government; in the DOCUMENTS of the FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE AMERICAN STATES.
DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES AND NECESSITY OF TAKING UP ARMS, JULY 6, 1775 ‑‑
"A declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North‑Ameri�ca, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms. If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, an unbounded power over others, MARKED OUT BY HIS INFINITE GOODNESS AND WISDOM, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body.
�BUT A REVERENCE FOR OUR GREAT CREATOR, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end...
�Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ...Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable, WE GRATEFUL�LY ACKNOWLEDGE, AS SIGNAL INSTANCES OF THE DIVINE FAVOR TOWARDS US, THAT HIS PROVIDENCE would not permit us to be exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, BEFORE GOD and the world declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, WHICH OUR BENEFICENT CREATOR hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with on mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves...WITH AN HUMBLE CONFIDENCE IN THE MERCIES OF THE SUPREME AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE AND RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, WE MOST DEVOUTLY IMPLORE HIS DIVINE GOODNESS TO PROTECT US HAPPILY THROUGH THIS GREAT CONFLICT, TO DISPOSE OUR ADVERSARIES TO RECONCILIATION ON REASONABLE TERMS, AND THEREBY TO RELIEVE THE EMPIRE FROM THE CALAMITIES OF CIVIL WAR." (Did you see and understand that ‑‑ Our ancestors not only asked God to help them but they asked God to help England to bear up under their defeat!) (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), pages 10, 16, 17)
PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION OF THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, MAY 15, 1776, INSTRUCTING THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS TO "PROPOSE TO THAT RESPECTABLE BODY TO DECLARE THE UNITED COLONIES FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."
"WHEREFORE, APPEALING TO THE SEARCHER OF HEARTS for the sincerity of former declarations expressing our desire to preserve the connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked councils, and the eternal law of self‑ preservation..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927) page 19)
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ‑‑ 1776 in Congress, July 4, 1776, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America ‑‑
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to 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, a decent respect to the opinion of them to the separation. ‑‑ We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
� WE, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, APPEALING TO THE SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions...‑‑ And for the support of this Declaration, WITH A FIRM RELIANCE ON THE PROTEC�TION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, or Fortunes and our Sacred Honor." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), pages 22, 25))
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, March 1, 1781 ‑‑
"...on the 15th day of November, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy‑seven...
Article XIII
"...AND WHEREAS IT HATH PLEASED THE GREAT GOVERNOR OF THE WORLD TO INCLINE THE HEARTS OF THE LEGISLATURES WE RESPECTIVELY REPRESENT IN CONGRESS, TO APPROVE OF, AND TO AUTHORIZE US TO RATIFY THE SAID ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION...Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy‑eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), pages 27, 35, 36))
ORDINANCE OF 1787, JULY 13, 1787 ‑‑
"...Sec. 13. AND FOR EXTENDING THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, WHICH FORM THE BASIS WHEREON THESE REPUBLICS, THEIR LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS, ARE ERECTED...
Article I ‑‑
No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or religious sentiments, in the said territory...
Article III ‑‑
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged ...Done by the United States, in Congress assembled, in the 13th day of July, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1787, and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), pages 51‑54)
CREDENTIALS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION ‑‑
"...IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), pages 55, 61‑65)
In the Debates of the members of the Federal Convention ‑‑
"...In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger WE HAD DAILY PRAYER IN THIS ROOM FOR THE DIVINE PROTECTION. ‑‑ OUR PRAYERS, Sir, WERE HEARD, AND THEY WERE GRACIOUSLY ANSWERED. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. TO THAT KIND PROVIDENCE we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. HAVE WE NOT FORGOTTEN THAT POWERFUL FRIEND? OR DO WE IMAGINE THAT WE NO LONGER NEED HIS ASSISTANCE? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth ‑‑ THAT GOD GOVERNS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN. AND IF A SPARROW CANNOT FALL TO THE GROUND WITHOUT HIS NOTICE, IS IT PROBABLE THAT AN EMPIRE CAN RISE WITHOUT HIS AID?� WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED, Sir, IN THE SACRED WRITINGS, THAT 'EXCEPT THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE THEY LABOUR IN VAIN THAT BUILD IT.' I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS; AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT HIS CONCURRING AID WE SHALL SUCCEED IN THIS POLITICAL BUILDING NO BETTER, THAN THE BUILDERS OF BABEL: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move ‑‑ THAT HENCEFORTH PRAYERS IMPLORING THE ASSISTANCE OF HEAVEN, AND ITS BLESSINGS ON OUR DELIBERATIONS, BE HELD IN THIS ASSEMBLY EVERY MORNING BEFORE WE PROCEED TO BUSINESS, AND THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE CLERGY OF THIS CITY BE REQUESTED TO OFFICIATE THAT SERVICE (Benjamin Franklin Thursday, June 28 In Convention 1787)...
�Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye measure, THAT A SERMON BE PREACHED at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence; and THENCE FORWARD PRAYERS BE USED in Ye Convention every morning..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), pages 295‑297)
"...IN RELIGION THE CREATURE IS APT TO FORGET ITS CREATOR..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), page 319)
"...MOST MEN INDEED AS WELL AS MOST SECTS IN RELIGION, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines, is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), page 739)
"...That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), page 1035)
"...That religion, OR THE DUTY WHICH WE OWE TO OUR CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason, and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured or established by law in preference to others..." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, Government Printing Office, Washington (1927), page 1047)
So, how did the anti‑Christs propose to change the original Republican Government into a Democracy so it would no longer be a protector of Christianity? They made our American People forget that our Founding Fathers organized our American form of Government for the purpose of protecting Christians and Christianity from all of its enemies. They have all but accomplished this purpose through their ownership of the publishing houses, where they have removed from our schools history books the writings of our colonial founders. In that way they keep our children from reading documents such as the MARYLAND CHARTER which ended with a proviso that no interpretation of the charter should be allowed whereby
"God's Holy and True Christian Religion might in any wise suffer."
They deny to our people the knowledge that our forefathers wrote into the RHODE ISLAND CHARTER, that the very reason for the Rhode Island Government was that the people might,
"BE IN A BETTER CAPACITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THEIR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AGAINST ALL THE ENEMIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH."
In short, they deny to us and our children the truth that our American Republican Government was established to protect our Christian people in the practice of their Christian faith. Through the television programs, movies, schools and the pulpits of the Clergy of Organized Religion, who are traitors to Christ and are mostly Prophets of Baal, and have sold their pulpits to the enemies of Christ and America, and have denied us the knowledge of the true origins of our government and that its laws were derived from the Christian Bible!
Consider how helpless this has made those who oppose the wicked. Think of the various kinds of evil and corruption THE SINS ‑‑ that are destroying this once Great Christian Nation; SINS such as drugs, alcohol, pornographic material in magazines, movies, television and the establishment of the abortion [Murder] mills of the unborn.
So‑called "Free love" rather than marriage, and if married, an easy divorce. And when we Christians oppose these evil things [just as did our ancestors in Ancient Israel when they fought against the Edomite and Canaanite {Jewish} Nations who practiced these evils, and it is their descendents who have brought these damnable things into our beloved country] ‑‑ they call us "Bigots," "Right‑wing fanatics," "kooks," "Neo‑Nazi's," "anti‑Semitic," "Jesus‑freaks," or "Fascists."
They claim we must not insist upon the enforcement of God's Laws against these sins, because, after all, "We are a pluralistic society," or "We are not a Christian Nation." One even hears well known television, evangelists using those same phrases [By their fruits ye shall know them. It is by such teachings we know they have become nothing but prostitutes and that they have joined the ranks of Christs' and Americas' enemies]. We hear from such so‑called Christian Ministers, such as Jerry Falwell exclaim:
"It's a shame America was founded as a Christian Nation."
WHILE IT WAS ENFORCING GOD'S LAWS AMERICA GREW INTO THE RICHEST, STRONGEST, GREATEST AND MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!
Therefore, you cannot counter their statements, and brand them as the lies they are if you do not know that we WERE a Christian Nation. That as a result of such teachings the men in government do not know America is/was a Christian Nation, so they can not or will not enforce God's Laws as the Laws of the Land. The enemies of Christ and America, say all too many times, "You can't enforce morality," and yet that is exactly what our early American Government did when it executed or imprisoned abortionists, murderers and traitors. N.S. McFetridge has thrown more light upon another development of the Revolutionary period.
So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively.
"Another important factor in the independent movement was what is known as the 'Mecklenburg Declaration,' proclaimed by the Scotch‑Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration [of Independence] of Congress.
�It was a fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch‑Irish to their struggling brethren in the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for patriots to speak. According, they called a representative body together in Charlotte, N.C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these; 'We do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother‑country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown...We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self‑governing association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual co‑operation and our lives, our fortunes and our most sacred honor.'...
�That assembly was composed of twenty‑seven staunch Christians, just one‑third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, 'in effect, a declaration as well as a complete system of government.'" (U.S. History VIII, p. 40)
In the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Loraine Boettner, p. 394 we find:
"The...ideas concerning governments and rulers have been ably expressed by J.C. Monsuma in the following lucid paragraph: 'Governments are instituted by God through the instrumentality of the people. No Kaiser or president has any power inherent in himself; whatever power he possesses, whatever sovereignty he exercises, is power and sovereignty derived from the great Source above.
�No might, but right, and might springing from the eternal Fountain of Justice...If the government were nothing but a group of men, bound to carry out the wishes of a popular majority, his freedom‑loving soul would rebel.
�But now, to his mind, and according to his fixed belief, back of the government stands God and before Him he kneels in deepest reverence. Here also lies the fundamental reason for that profound and almost fanatical love of freedom, also the political freedom...The government is God's servant. That means that AS MEN all government officials stand on an equal footing with their subordinates; have no claim to superiority in any sense whatever...For exactly the same reason the [Christian] gives preference to a republican form of government over any other type. In no other form of government does the sovereignty of God, the derivative character of government powers and the equality of men as men, find a clearer and more eloquent expression.'"
However, since it has become a Democracy at the dictates of the GREATEST TRAITOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, it has been rapidly declining until it is now a mere shell of its former greatness.
You may not have thought of it just that way, and perhaps your Minister has joined the chorus saying "we can't enforce Bible Laws." But the writers of the New Testament knew it was the job of government to enforce morality. Romans 13 relates twice that civil rulers are called Ministers of God to punish evildoers. In other words, to punish those who violate Bible Laws. So, you see, the New Testament says that government is to punish those who break God's Laws. Our Christian forefathers knew that and to our Founding Fathers that was the essence of Christian Government. There is more in the New Testament to show that God's Laws are to be enforced by government to punish evildoers.
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mother, for manslayers. For whoremonge�rs, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:9‑10)
One other aspect needs to be addressed. That being:
WHITE RACE ‑‑ NOT CAUCASIAN
Many in the freedom and Christian Identity movement are beginning to refer to themselves as "Caucasians" with the understanding that this term means only those of the White Race. Well it is true every "Caucasian" belongs to the family of Adam. But, not every "Caucasian" is an Israelite. The first naturalization Act passed by Congress entitled, "...an Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." (a) March 26, 1790, Ch. III, Sec. 1, 1 Stat. 103; and, An Act to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. (a) January 29, 1795, Ch. XX., Sec. 1, 1 Stat. 103, do not use this word "Caucasian,"� they use the word "White."
"SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That any alien, BEING A FREE WHITE PERSON, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."
The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America states: "We the People..." This was known and understood as only those of the White Race. (See Dread Scott vs. Sandford, (1856‑57) 19 Howard (60 U.S.) 393) The Supreme Court ruled that the Preamble meant those of the White Race. The word "WHITE" leaves no doubt as to its meaning. It does not mean black, brown, red, yellow, or any mixture thereof; it means WHITE.
To true Christians, White means those of the Race of Adam, which is the creation of the White Race by our Father, as He created SEPARATELY the brown, yellow and black races. Reference to the Holy Bible is obviously missing from the court cases which we will be dealing with, but we first seek our Father's Word to establish what the word means, then read the court's interpretation so we can better understand if they're right. The forces that wish to invade our Nation found it difficult to get around the word "White" in the Naturalization Act.
As long as the county courts of Christian Common Law Jurisdiction within the boundaries of the several state republics had control of naturalization, the Congress, under organic Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, could only pass uniform laws of naturalization. Should these acts of Congress become unconstitutional, the courts of Christian Common Law Jurisdiction would not honor them and refuse to naturalize anyone NOT of the White Race, as it violates the state constitutions and the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America.
"SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That any alien, BEING A FREE WHITE PERSON, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, AND NOT OTHERWISE:‑"
Note the change of the words in the 1802 Naturalization Act: "...AND NOT OTHERWISE." Those who schemed to destroy this provision of our Nation's law knew that they would have to alter or change the word "White" to another word and this word would have to be acceptable to the White Citizens; it would have to have the understanding of white, while it would open the door to non‑whites to demand citizenship in our nation. The principal was used in the Social Security Act. Before a White human joined, the courts viewed him as human; after he joined, the courts viewed him as artificial.
This kind of scheme is common among those who, by deception, wish to alter our law or destroy our standing under the Organic Law. In all probability, the scheme used in the Social Security Act was probably learned in the use of the word "Caucasian." The first case is [Takao] Ozawa vs. United States, 43 S.Ct. 65; 260 U.S. 178; 67 L.ed. 199 (1922). Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the court:
"The appellant is a person of the Japanese race, born in Japan. He applied, on October 16, 1914, to the United States district court for the territory of Hawaii to be admitted as a citizen of the United States." (Ozawa vs. United States, supra, at p. 205)
As stated, appellant is of the Japanese race, born in Japan, not in the United States. The statutory 14th Amendment did not apply.
"The district court of Hawaii, however, held that, having been born in Japan, and being of the Japanese race, he was not eligible to naturalization..." (Ozawa vs. United States, supra, at p. 205)
The district court of Hawaii denied the petition and the appellant went to the circuit court of appeals, which certified three (3) questions to the United States Supreme Court, which were as follows:
1). Is the Act of June 29, 1906. (34 Stat. at L. p. 596, Chap. 3592, Comp. Stat. @ 963, 6 Fed. Stat. Anno., 2d ed. p. 940) providing 'for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens' complete in itself, or is it limited by @ 2169 of the������������������ Revised Statutes of the United States?
2). Is one who is of the Japanese race and born in Japan eligible to citizenship under the Naturalization Laws?
3). If said Act of June 29, 1906, is limited by @ 2169, and naturalzation is limited to aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity, and to persons of African descent, is one of the Japanese race, born in Japan, under any circumstances eligible to naturaliza�tion? (Ozawa vs. United States, supra, at p. 205)
The statutory 14th article in the United States Constitution, of course, preceded this statute; which is why the persons of African descent are brought into the case. The schemers never fail to bring this into a case, as it really is important for them to show that the Christian Common Law rule of one race to govern has really been broken; but it also works against them, as each race, other than white, must be authorized by Congress to be a statutory citizen ‑‑ race by race. The vehicle Congress used for this was the statutory 14th Amendment which, today they have expanded to include all races, mixture of races, and even corporations; all unconstitutionally in violation of our Father's Word and the Basic law of our Nation. All of this was aided through the misconception of interpreting the word "Caucasian" by saying it is synonymous with the word "white," which in reality only describes a geographical area. There is no proof that only whites lives in this area; just as you know, because a person says he's European, doesn't mean he's of the White Race.
"Thus, in Ex parte Shahid, 205 Fed. 812, the court said that the meaning of the term was such as would naturally have been given to it when used in the first naturalization Act of 1790, at which date all Europeans were commonly classed as the White Race; and that, under such an interpretation, it would mean all persons belonging to the European races, then commonly counted as white, and their descendants, AND WOULD NOT REFER TO THE CAUCASIAN RACE, a term generally employed only after the date of the statute, and in a most loose and indefinite way; and that such geographical interpretation that white persons meant person of European ancestry and descent was, at least, capable of uniform application, and gave to the statute a construction that avoided the uncertainties of shades of color and individious discriminations as to the race of individuals." (Ozawa vs. United States, p. 200)
These court rulings were necessarily held because these people that were in the geographical zone were claiming they were of the Caucasian zone. Do you see what is going on? The court soon realized that to interpret by geographical areas was a big mistake. Everything from purple to green claim to be eligible for citizenship in the United States of America. When our forefathers and Founding Fathers wrote the Preamble, they knew who "We the People" were; the first Congress knew when they passed the first naturalization Act; and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat 518, 644; 4 L. ed. 629, 661, knew what it meant.
"...in deciding a question of constitutional construction: 'It is not enough to say that this particular case was not in the mind of the Convention when the article was framed, nor of the American people when it was adopted. It is necessary to go farther, and to say that, had this particular case been suggested, the language would have been so varied as to exclude it, or it would have been made a special exception. The case, being within the words of the rule, must be within its operation likewise, unless there be something in the literal construction so obviously absurd or mischievous, or repugnant to the general spirit of the instrument, as to justify those who expound the Constitution in making it an exception.'
�If it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation 'white' were negroes and Indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. It is not important, in construing their words, to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge, or whether they through that, under the statute, the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be Negroes and Indians. It is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include; and, having ascertained that, it follows, as a necessary corollary, that all others are to be excluded." (Ozawa vs. United States, supra, at p. 208)
"But from the latest interpretation of this term by the United States Supreme Court in United States vs. Bhagat Singh Think, post, 616, it appears that the words 'white persons' and 'Caucasians' are not identical in meaning, and the test of membership in the Caucasian race is only useful in excluding an alien who is not a member of such race, and does not mean that mere membership in such race entitles an alien to be naturalized, as explained by such court in excluding a Hindu, though of such race. In a valuable discussion of this point, the court called attention to the fact that the word 'Caucasian' did not appear in the statute; and was employed by the court simply as an aid to the ascertainment of the legislative intent in using, in describing the class of aliens who may be naturalized..." (Ozawa vs. United States, supra at p. 199)
This scheme to "waterdown" the word "white" was aided by another scheme, the old saying: "out of sight, out of mind."
"As stated in Ozawa vs. United States, the expression 'white persons,' to describe aliens capable of naturalization, is found in all our Naturalization Acts since the first one, in 1790, except for a brief period from 1873 to 1875, WHEN IT WAS OMITTED BY MISTAKE." (Ozawa vs. United States, p. 178)
Another aid was the Revised Statutes themselves:
"These provisions were restated in the Revised Statutes, so that @ 2165 included only the procedural portion, while the substantive parts were carried into a separate section (2169) and the words 'An alien' substituted for the words 'Any alien.'"; "In all of the Naturalization Acts, from 1790 to 1906, the privilege of naturaliza�tion was confined to White Persons..." (Ozawa vs. United States, supra, at p. 206)
Here, the schemers are trying to say the Revised Statutes changed the word "any" to "an," and there by altered the intent of the Act of Congress as recorded in the true law known as the United States Statutes at Large. The Revised Statutes are codifications of the United States Statutes at Large, the U.S. Statutes at large are the law, not the Revised Statutes, as shown.
"The division of the Revised Statutes into titles and chapters is chiefly a matter of convenience, and reference to a given title or chapter is simply a ready method of identifying the particular provisions which are meant.
�It is inconceivable that a rule in force from the beginning of the government, a part of our history as well as our law, welded into the structure of our national policy by a century of legislative and administrative acts and judicial decisions ‑‑ would have been deprived of its force in such dubious and casual fashion." (Ozawa vs. United States, at p. 207)
Those are the schemes the spoilers used to alter the word "white." I personally believe that America is Israel. I believe that America is the regathering of the thirteen tribes of Israel into a nation as our Father God has said he would do. I believe that the White Race compose of the thirteen tribes, which is why the first Naturalization Act said any White Person, regardless of his place or origin, could be a citizen in this Nation.
"And in Dow vs. United States, 140 C.C.A. 549, 226 Fed. 145, the court below said that the real question was as to who was referred to in the term 'white persons' in the Act of 1790, in the understanding of the makers of the law, and it held that such term referred to aliens of European nativity, or descent only; but the appellate court was not of this opinion, and said, in reference thereto, that while, in 1790, when the first Naturalization Act was passed, immigration to this provide for naturalization of aliens from Europe, and to deny naturalization to negroes, yet, in not mentioning the people of Europe, and in extending the privilege of naturalization to any 'Free White Person,' it seems reasonable to think that Congress must have believed that there were White Persons who were natives of countries outside Europe.
�Especially as the writers on the subject at that time were not agreed in the view that Europeans were the only White People; but that, if it be assumed that the preponderance of the argument was strongly in favor of the conclusion that, in 1790, the popular understanding was that people of European nativity or descent were white, and that all others were colored and that legislators had not in definite view any persons as white, except those of present statute, as from that time down to the present the popular construction of race divisions has become more distinct, and Congress has amended and repealed and re‑enacted the statute; and it cannot be said, in view of this, that the present statute must be construed in the light of knowledge and conception of the legislators who passed the original statute in 1790, without respect to the more definite and general knowledge and conception which must be attributed to the legislators who, upon reconsideration of the whole subject, enacted subsequent statutes, including that now in force." (Ozawa vs. United States, supra, at p. 201)
IT IS TIME FOR THE WHITE RACE TO WAKE UP! FOLLOW THE WORD OF OUR FATHER ‑ ALMIGHTY GOD AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND RESTORE THE REPUBLIC FORMED UNDER THE TRIUNE GOD‑HEAD.
All this has happened to "We the People," which are only White Christian People from the beginning of our nation because we have turned our face away from Almighty God and His only Son Jesus Christ. In times of trouble we turn to men and earthly things, instead of God, the potter, can cure all defects in the clay while the clay can do nothing by itself?
The Christians [God's Children, the Chosen] of our nation, including myself, have allowed every kind of perversion and violation of God's Law to go unchallenged in our presence for fear of persecution. We have violated God's Law ourselves either by acts or omissions. Had we and our ancestors followed God's Law and leaned on Him and His Son Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit thus coming upon us, what we do and don't do might not come to evil. Just as an honest man cannot be swindled because of his honesty and lack of greed, a man that walks in the path of God cannot fall in the ditch of evil. So I submit to you, the hearts of God's people must return to him with a conviction unto mortal death. Then God might have mercy upon our nation and remove the tyranny of this rebel de facto central government from
us.
"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." (2 Chronicles 7:14)
Now compare the oath or affirmation our forefathers took when America was young, and the one we take today:
"I _________________________ being by God's providence an inhabitant and freeman within the jurisdiction of this commonwealth. Do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear by the great and dreadful name of the Everliving God that I will be true and faithful to the same and will accordingly yield assistance and support thereunto with my person and estate as in equity I am bound, and will also truly endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties and privileges thereof. Submitting myself to the wholesome laws and orders made and established by the same. And further that I will not plot or practice any evil against it or consent to any that shall so do, but will timely discover and reveal the same to lawful authority. Now here establish for the speedy prevention thereof. Moreover I do solemnly bind myself in the sight of God that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matter of this state, in which freeman are to deal I will give my vote and suffrage as I shall judge in mine own conscience that may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body. Without respect of person or favor of any man so help me God, in the Lord Jesus Christ."
That was an oath taken by our Christian forefathers in the colonies. Here is the oath taken by Americans today who believe that upon taking it they do a great thing.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge of Allegiance, like the prayer, recognizes the existence of a Supreme Being. Since 1954 it has contained the word "one nation UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (36 C.S.C. 172)
The House report, recommending the addition of the words "under God" stated that those words in no way run contrary to the First Amendment but recognize "only the guidance of God in our national affairs" H.R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. p. 3, Ami sec 5. Rep. No. 1257, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. Senator Ferguson, who sponsored the measure in the Senate, pointed out that the words "In God We Trust" are over the entrance to the Senate Chamber. (100 Cong. Rec. 6348)
He added:
"I have felt that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag which stands for the United States of America should recognize the Creator who we really believe is in control of the destinies of this great Republic. It is true that under the Constitution no power is lodged anywhere to establish a religion. This is not an attempt to establish a religion, it has nothing to do with anything of that kind. It relates to belief in God, in whom we sincerely repose our trust. We know that America cannot be defended by guns, planes, and ships alone. Appropriations and expenditures for defense will be of value only if the God under whom we live believes we are in the right. We should at all times recognized God's province over the lives of our people and over this great Nation." (See 100 Cong. Rec. 7757 et seq. for the debates in the House)
The Act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 517, 518, authorized the phrase "In God We Trust" to be placed on coins. And sec. 17 Stat. 427. The first mandatory requirements for the use of that motto on coins was made by the Act of May 18, 1903, (35 Stat. 164. See H.R. Rep. No. 1106, 60th Cong., 1st. sess.; 42 Cong. Rec. 3384 et seq) The use of the motto on all currency and coins was directed by the Act of July 11, 1955, 69 Stat. 290. See H.R. Rep. No. 662, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., S. Rep. No. 637, 84th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rep. No 637, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. Moreover, by the Joint Resolution of July 30, 1956, our national motto was declared to be "In God We Trust." (70 Stat. 732) In reporting the Joint Resolution, the Senate Judiciary Committee stated:
"Further official recognition of this motto was given by the adoption of the Star‑Spangled Banner as our national anthem."
One stanza of our national anthem is as follows:
"O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation:
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto ‑‑ 'In God is our trust,'
And the Star‑Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."
In view of these words in our national anthem, it is clear that
"In God we trust' has a strong claim as our national motto." (S. Rep. No. 2703, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. p. 2)
We are not condemning the pledge we take today. But do you see the difference? In those days, they pledged their obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Today we pledge to a symbol of the nation, and we have left out the Lord Jesus Christ. We have deserted the Rock upon which this nation was founded! Now in spite of the fact that we believe that we should pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and we believe it is, indeed, quite a symbol to show how far we have retreated from the first principles which were established in the early days of America. Today, some people, even to this short pledge of allegiance they say it as a ritual, having little if any understanding even of what the flag for America stands for. It is simply a case of America forgetting the rock of its salvation.
����������������� THE UNITED STATES IS RESTORED ISRAEL
To all men of good will of all racial origins and of all religious faiths.
Knowledge is a collection of facts.
Wisdom wins wars before they start.
Wisdom is the use of knowledge.
Knowledge aborts national hostilities.
Without facts there is no knowledge.
Wisdom obviates racial antipathies.
Without knowledge there is no wisdom.
Knowledge effaces religious animosities.
Facts prevent what nothing can cure.
Emancipation from bigotry prefaces peace.
Facts are Man's best defense mechanism.
Intolerance takes all and gives nothing.
Without them men fumble, falter and fail.
Peace rewards reciprocal respect and regard.
Without them nations decline and fall.
To all Men of Good‑Will, "Pax Vobiscum!"
Having shown, beyond any doubt, America was founded as a Christian Nation, we will now finish Chapter One and finish showing you that The United States of America is Restored Israel. We have previously shown that a Republican Nation or Nationality was unequivocally promised to Israel, in the Christian era, or "latter day," as some like to say; and having demonstrated, we believe, that the application of this promise to Israel, and its reference to Christians is an inevitable conclusion. The United States being a late and extraordinary Christian Israel people, we inquire, may it not be the veritable nationality of the prophets? If it is an Israel at all, if it coincides with all the great characteristics predicted of a Christian nationality, then all doubt must end, and our country rise into an importance and sublimity absolutely overwhelming. It will further cause you to understand why the anti‑Christs are trying so desperately to destroy her. If Satan can destroy the United States of America then he will be able to destroy Christ's New Jerusalem and New Zion thereby delaying if not totally preventing Christ's return. At least that is what Satan and his children are desperately hoping to accomplish.
We submit the following positions for your review (For a more complete rendition send for our book "America is New Jer‑ USA ‑lem and New Zion."
1). The United States is a Christian Israel:
The name Israel, literally signifies, "a prince with God, or wrestling or prevailing with God." It was a personal appellative of Jacob, and, by Metonomy; of his descendants; in the Old Testament, when used declaratively, it refers either to the Israelite nation, or to the thirteen tribes; in the New Testament, it is applied to Christians, as, for example, "the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:16) With the literal sense, the United States coincides, for it wrestled with God in universal prayer and tears, in its great struggle for civil and religious liberty, and it prevailed.
It is also, in form, a dual nationality, as was ancient Israel, the specific difference being just that existing between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. It is composed of a vast body of Christians, and its nationality, the offspring of their principles and of themselves, is as legitimately entitled to their name of Christian Israel, as is the legitimate child to the name of its sire; at the transformation of the Hebrew church into a nationality at the exodus, the name Israel was properly transferred to the nation; so the name of Christ's Israel may, with equal propriety, be applied to a nationality into which this Israel is transformed, the cases being exactly similar. Therefore, the United States, from these several consideration, may, with strict propriety, be called an Israel.
2). All the great features predicted of Israel restored, are possessed by the United States:
The most complete and specific descriptions of the restoration, are given by Ezekiel and Isaiah; to these we shall devote most attention. To appreciate, to any degree, the arguments of our entire work (America is New Jer‑USA‑lem and New Zion, America Was Founded As A Christian Nation, Exposing the Judeo‑ Christian Lie and Exposing The Chosen People Lie all books by this author), it must be kept constantly in view, that prophecy is of two kinds ‑‑ the clear and the obscure.
The former needs no explanation; to know the true import of the latter, demands the greatest skill, and its exact meaning can be known only by fulfillment, coinciding with some one of the plurality of legitimate expositions, of which the specific prediction is, a priori, susceptible. By far the greater portion of prophecy is intentionally obscure. The obscurity proceeds from the ambiguity of terms used, or from symbols; the language of symbols is always determinate and simple, but realization is essential to their application to their subject; ambiguous terms, from the nature of the case, admit of a plurality of senses, a priori. To determine which of these meanings was the divine intention, and at the same time to show an unequivocal fulfillment in the end, necessitates the following rule: any legitimate, exposition of an obscure prophecy, with which future events clearly coincide, is thereby determined to be the intention of the prophecy, and such coincidence is fulfillment. The great point of importance, then, is to be certain that our interpretations and expositions are legitimate, and a rule to test such legitimacy is demanded. The rule is this: any exposition not opposed to the context, nor to the nature of things existing, before fulfillment, must be considered legitimate. With these positions stated to guide the inquirer, we proceed to present the following.
"Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far..." (Isaiah 60:9)
1). The term "isles," was applied anciently to Europe, and all countries west of Asia Minor. Those vast countries supposed to exist in the Atlantic, west of Gibraltar, are also termed isles, by both Plato and Diodorus Siculus.
2). The waiting of the isles for God, implies either their delay in receiving the emigrating people of God, spoken of in the text, or of the gospel; the former is more likely, the meaning, since the ships bringing emigrants are those the isles were waiting for; indeed, the consecutive coupling of isles waiting for God, and for the ships with emigrants, almost necessitates this meaning.
3). "The ships of Tarshish." Tarshish was the most ancient name of Spain; it is supposed to apply, also, to Tarsus in Cilcia.
4). "Tarshish first;" the word "first," was intended pointedly to specify the first people who would approach "the waiting isles." As prophecy notes only the greatest events of time, the term "first," must apply to some very stupendous and famous circumstance. Now we do not claim that our exposition the only one of which the text is susceptible, but simply that it is legitimate; this claim must be admitted, because it is in accordance with the rule stated above, and therefore can not be denied. America answers to the term "isles," and "the ships of Tarshish first," to the discovery of America by the ships of Spain, opening the way to the emigration of God's people, to form a nationality in "the isles."
The events coinciding with the legitimate exposition given, the
prophecy is seen to be realized, as we supposed, and our supposition is thus confirmed, as the real intention of the prophecy.
"In the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many nations against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste." (Ezekiel 38:8)
As the Israel restored was to be of Christians, this text must predict the nationality of Christians, gathered from various countries. The country "always waste," prior to their coming, was manifestly a wilderness, "from of old." America coincides with the country described, and the United States with the "gathered" nationality of Christian immigrants.
"Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down. But there the glorious Lord shall be unto us a place of broad rivers and streams; wherein shall go no galley with oars, neither shall gallant ship pass thereby." (Isaiah 33:20‑21)
The peace and permanency of Israel are elsewhere spoken of by the prophets, who affirm, that once restored, it shall never fall again. "There, the Lord being a place of broad rivers and streams," teaches that prosperity and peace in the land of Israel will spring from the gift of a place of broad rivers and streams, where the tabernacle of Israel's nationality shall be erected. It is common, in scripture, to embody a promise, or threat, in terms figurative, to embody a promise, or threat, in terms figurative, which, when taken literally, designate the very agencies by which the threat or promise in realized.
Sword and fire may symbolize war; or rain may represent plenty, yet each is an essential agent in the realization. So broad river and streams may symbolize vast inland prosperity, and yet are essential means of effecting it, and may, therefore, be taken in a literal, as well as figurative sense. Galley and gallant ship, represent the greater and smaller classes of war vessels; their presence would indicate the vassalage of Jerusalem to foreigners, their absence, therefore, declares Israel's independence. Vast inland prosperity afforded by broad rivers and streams; a glorious independence of all nations, are mighty features of our great American people. Our exposition is, legitimate, and is endorsed by the acts, as the intention of the prophet.
"They shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders." (Isaiah 49:22); "But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west." (Isaiah 11:14)
Bearing upon the shoulders plainly teaches the transportation of Israel by the Gentiles; and Moses teaches that flying upon another, means transportation; hence it mean it here. The United States has the most aircraft of any country on the face of the earth, at the present time. The course of transportation would be westward. Now, the great emigration of Christians to America, was westward, from the maritime Philistia of modern Europe.
"Ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel; Joseph shall have two portions." (Ezekiel 47:13)
Joseph had two portions of old Israel, and thus there were thirteen tribes, and the same number was to exist at the rise of Christian Israel. In the forty‑eighth chapter, it is said, these divisions shall lie side by side, on a great sea, with the limits extending
"from the east side unto the west side. A map of these is published in Clarke's Commentary. All prophecies of the modern restoration, relate to a Christian Nation and since the United States arose in thirteen colonies, whose limits, in the language of the old charters, "extended westward, from sea to sea," (Joel 2:20) we have over‑powering evidence, that our country was intended by the prophet."; "Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers." (Isaiah 49:23)
Nursing applies to attentions in the infancy of the restoration. A word is sufficient. The memorial of nursing kings, and queens, and princes, will remain upon our rivers and waters, our counties and towns, our cities and states while time shall last. Louisiana, Georgia, the Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, will ever suggest the early interest of royalty in our colonial history.
"I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning." (Isaiah 1:26)
Judges and counsellors were an essential part of the ancient Israelite Republic, or of the first government, and their restoration also implies republicanism.
"Their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor from the midst of them." (Jeremiah 30:21)
The selection of rulers from the masses of the people, is incidental to a Republic only.
"Thy destroyers, and they that made thee waste, shall go forth of thee." (Isaiah 49:17)
Spiritual and civil monarchists were ever the destroyers of Christians, and the removal of their power, leaves only the alternative of freedom.
"Thou [Gog] shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, to turn thy hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, upon the people that are gathered out of the nations." (Ezekiel 38:11)
Our country of America; our Israel was "gathered out of the nations;" "we dwell in the midst of the land;" we "are at rest in the desolate places now inhabited;" we "dwell safely in unwalled villages, with neither bars nor gates" to our cities.
"Thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even be too narrow, by reason of inhabitants. The children thou shalt have after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, the place is too straight for me, give to me that I may dwell." (Isaiah 49:19)
Thirty seven states, added to the "Old Thirteen," have not mitigated the unceasing cry for "place, that I may dwell."
America's White Race is now reaching for the stars, even though they are being held back by those who would destroy her. And know that if she ever does reach space and develops settlements on other worlds they will never be able to control them again and therefore the White Christians would forever more be a threat to their existence. Here is a coincidence that comes home personally to all of us.
"Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of deeper speech than thou canst perceive: of a stammering tongue that thou canst not understand." (Isaiah 33:19)
The universality of one language is legitimately inferred from this passage, and the unity of the language of the American people, is one of the most extraordinary occurrences in the history of great nations. Now you know why the anti‑Christs are trying so desperately to bring in aliens, so as to change the language of America.
"All thy children shall be taught of the Lord." (Isaiah 54:13)
This could mean either a conversion to God or universal Christian education. In the beginning our educational system was unparalleled in history; the Bible was the basis, and every child in our country was taught about God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the gospel and the Bible.
"The abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee." (Isaiah 60:5)
That is, the commerce of the world.
"The forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee; the multitude of camels shall cover thee." (Isaiah 60:5)
This is, vast multitudes of immigrants shall pour into the country.
"Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as doves to their windows?" (Isaiah 60:8)
Clouds indicate multitudes, and doves returning show that wanderers are flying hither for rest, from the flood of sorrow on the earth. More graphic accounts of the foreign immigration to our shores than Isaiah gives, could not be written. And the United States of America has more airplanes flying in its vast air fleets and air force than any other nation on earth.
"In the last days the mountain [civil government] of the Lord's house [church or Christians], shall be established in the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, come ye, and let up GO UP to the mountain of the Lord [to the nation] in the house of the God of Jacob." (Isaiah 2:2‑3 and Micah 4:1)
The locality of the nation is represented higher than other places. Maury, in the last century, shows that� the whole earth, to reach us, is literally obliged to COME UP TO US, because we are on the physical head of the world, and doubtless in the ancient Eden, with its four‑headed river.
"These shall come from far; and lo, these from the north and west; and these from the land of Sinim." (Isaiah 49:12)
Drs. Morison and Hagar affirm that Sinim is China, and the latter "undertakes the proof in two very learned tracts." How true this text of our country; how unlikely of Palestine, for even to this day there is no way Chinese people could go to Palestine from the Northwest; for the Chinese are immigrating from China to the United States from the northwest.
"The sons of them that afflicted thee, shall come bending unto thee." (Isaiah 60:14)
Romanists were the great prosecutors of Bible Christians, at the instigation of the Jews, and their heavy laden sons and daughters crowd by tens of thousands, to serve as menials, that people whom their fathers afflicted. At least they did in the last century. But the anti‑Christs have changed that around also.
"The sons of strangers shall build thy walls." (Isaiah 60:1)
Our great systems of internal improvements; our railroads and many of our highways, and all their drudgery was performed by strangers to our religion and liberty. China, and the Negro from Africa, show this prophecy to be true.
"Ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance to you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, that shall beget children among you. They shall have inheritance with you." (Ezekiel 47:22)
The constitution tolerates all religions. The inheritance or citizenship is first to sojourners; then to those who raise families of native born children; and then to the children themselves. Ezekiel's suggestion is profoundly politic. To limit citizens' prerogatives to strangers, who are heads of native born families, is consonant with good sense, as such persons have strong motives to uphold good government.
"Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Daniel 8:14); "...it shall be for a time, times and a half; and when he shall have accomplished, to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." (Daniel 12:7); "From the time the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, there shall be 1290 days." (Daniel 12:11)
These texts give, each, the length of Israel's desolation. Their starting point appears to be at the cessation of the daily sacrifice, on the 189th day of 68, A.D., and each period is exactly equal to 1708 years. The ending point is therefore on July 4th, 1776. On that day "a nation was born at once." Before closing the argument, we will consider a few objections to it.
1). Modernists, those in the so‑called Judeo‑Christian churches of today object that we attribute a figurative sense to such towns as Israel, Judah, Canaan, etc. We deny the charge; we wrestle with all our strength to maintain that very ground.
For instance, the word Israel, literally, IS NOT THE JEWISH NATION, as our so‑called Judeo‑Christian ministers would have us think; it signifies anyone person who prevails with God. Applied to a body of people, it is then used figuratively, and, as a figure, it may designate the Israelite nation; the thirteen tribes; the scattered Israelites of our time, or any single body of Christians, such as the Waldenses, who were once known as the "Israel of the Alps."
The term is used by Paul to designate the True Seed of Abraham, the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred people, as, "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel [in other words the other nations of the world are not of Israel;" "the Israel of God," etc. But even on the supposition that the term means carnal Israel literally, our position is still tenable. Terms are always either literal or figurative; if their literal sense stands opposed to plain testimony, and the figurative does not, then are they to be understood as figurative, and vice versa. There is no evading this position. Scriptural examples also sustain the use of literal terms as figures: thus Ezekiel uses the name of David in such a way as necessitates it to stand for Christ; so, also, does David himself. (See Ezekiel 37, and Psalm 132:11)
Further, the gospel unequivocally affirm that "if a man be circumcised Christ shall profit him nothing," and positively limiting the fulfillment of the promises to Christians only, the figurative sense of the term Israel, as used in the promises, is required by inevitable necessity. The objection, though very grave with some, is really very trivial.
2). It is objected that the promise is so very specific, as to affirm that Israel restored is to "dwell in the land where their fathers dwelt."
This, however, is only a seeming objection. The "promise being sure to all the seed," and the absurdity of supposing that "all the seed" can possibly be those who dwell in Palestine, compels this restoration to be understood as a figure. But the prophecy is really detailing the history of Israel after the final resurrection, and positively coincides with the New Heavens and New Earth, described by Isaiah, Peter, and John. All, therefore, that can be inferred from it, its that the dwelling‑place of Israel, after the resurrection, will be on the regenerated globe. In the United States of America, the New Jerusalem and New Zion where Christ will reign.
3). It is objected that God has preserved the Jews an isolated people, for the express purpose of restoration to Palestine.
First: We answer, had they heard [believed] Christ, as God commanded, (Deuteronomy 15:18 and Acts 2:22) the customs which isolate them abolished, they would have lost their carnal identity, and would have merged into the True Israel.
Second: Because the Jews crucified the Lord Jesus Christ; and because they refused to acknowledge Him as their king, they are the condemned race. They are to be destroyed before Christ when He returns.
"But they [the Jews] cried out, Away with him [Christ], away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests [Jewish priests ‑ rabbis] answered, We [Jews] have no king but Caesar." (John 19:15); "But those mine [Christ's] enemies [the Jews], which would not that I [Christ] should reign over them [Jews], BRING HITHER [to old Jerusalem] and SLAY THEM BEFORE ME [Christ]." (Luke 19:27)
That they are to be totally destroyed is related to us by the prophet Obadiah:
"And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau [the Jews] for stubble, and they [Israel] shall kindle in them [Jews], and devour them; and THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY REMAINING OF THE HOUSE OF ESAU [Jews]." (Obadiah 18)
The sole and simple secret of their existence, as a distinct people, is their infidelity, their unbelief. Surely the Judeo‑Christian ministers will not begin to teach that God is the author of sin. 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." (National Jewish Information Service, 6412 W. Olympic Blvd. L.A. CA)
But further, the great works of Providence are all designed to promote the single end of regenerating the world; Christianity is the chosen agent of accomplishing this end, and the providences of God are all intended to spread Christianity. Now can any man see any other cause for the restoration of an evil people, other than for their eventual extermination by the Lord Jesus Christ upon His return to this earth? After the purpose for their existence has ended; after the desired purpose has been accomplished? The Israelite nation was a type of a regenerated world, a representation of happiness, not to be enjoyed by itself alone, in the realizing age, but of the blessedness of all nations in Abraham, through Christ.
Are not, then, the Jews holding out motives of a carnal nature, assuming untenable ground, and indirectly as well as directly caralizing Christianity, and fostering the very spirit which Paul denounced, when he proclaimed the Gentiles "fellow‑heirs" of the promises to the seed of Abraham? Let the Jewish sinners hear the gospel, and embrace it from the same motives presented in common to all mankind, let them be willing to all to all Christians an equal right to all the blessings of the gospel.
Let them acknowledge that God looks only at moral character and "is no respecter of persons" on account of mere parentage; let them admit the fact, that God will not raise and sustain any nation of persons on account of mere fleshly extraction, and that such extraction confers no virtue, no heredity pre‑emption to royal supremacy. Let them remember that the "joint‑heir of Jesus Christ" is not necessarily by birth but anyone that is born of God, no matter who. It is time for Christians to realize: NOT ONE TIME DID CHRIST TRY TO CONVERT A JEW TO CHRISTIANITY!
We now condense our arguments and close.
1). We showed the carnal theory to be irrational and anti‑scriptural.
2). That nationality in the latter day, was promised to Christians only.
3). That the United States is a Christian Israel.
4). That America coincides with the waiting isles.
5). That the ships of Spain, opening up America to Christian emigration, coincide with "the ships of Tarshish first to bring thy sons from far."
6). That America, a wilderness "from of old," coincides with the lands "which have been always waste."
7). That the United States, answers to the people gathered out of many nations in the country "always waste."
8). The great waterways of America, and our vast inland prosperity, answers to "there, a place of broad rivers and streams."
9). American independence, answers to "no galley with oars, neither gallant ship."
10). Western emigration, by royal encouragement, answers to flying to the west on the shoulders of modern Philistia or maritime Europe. And the ownership and operation of the greatest air fleets on the earth.
11). "The Old Thirteen," answer to the thirteen divisions of the Christian Nation, predicted by Ezekiel.
12). The royal proprietary and charter colonies, answer to "kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers."
13). Our republic, answers to "restoring thy judges as at first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning."
14). Our unwalled towns and villages, answer to Ezekiel's description of Israel's villages and cities.
15). Our unparalleled expansion, answers to the cry "the place is too straight; give place that I may dwell."
16). The universality of Christian education as it was early in our countries history answered to "all thy children shall be taught of the Lord."
17). The vast foreign immigration, answers to the 49th and 60th chapters of Isaiah.
18). America's location as head of the world, answers to the country to which all were to "go up."
19). The immigration from China, answers to "lo, these from the west, and from the land of Sinim." (All the historical commentators agree that "Sinim" is the ancient name for China. That was its ancient name, and was the name used on the Ancient Maps. China lies "north" and "west" or in other words northwest of the United States. There are few, if any, Theologians and "Ministers" who question that this passage describes the emigration of Chinese to the land of restored Israel. As a result, a question arises for those who support the view that the occupation of the present day bandit state of Israel is "restored Israel." That question being: HOW ARE THE CHINESE TO COME FROM CHINA TO PALESTINE FROM THE NORTHWEST? This cannot happen because it would be impossible, for China lies NORTHEAST of Palestine! Not only that, but here is a promise of emigration from a distant country, whose inhabitants mingle with few other nations; here their ancient name is given and the direction from which they were to come. Once again perfect coincidence is perfect fulfillment and our position is given even more strength)
20). The menial service of foreign Romanists, answers to the "bending of the sons of them that afflicted thee."
21). The drudgery of building canals, turnpikes, railroads and etc by foreign Chinese and Negros, answers to "the sons of strangers shall build thy walls."
22). Constitutional rights to foreigners, answer to an inheritance among us promised to strangers.
23). Universality and unity of language answer to "thou shalt not see a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive, (Yiddish - there are few non-Jews who can speak this language)" etc.
24). The birth day of our nation, July 4th, 1776, answers exactly to the day when Israel was to "be born at once."
So we can clearly see that the restoration of Israel and its fulfillment in the rise of the United States, has its parallels in the Israelites escape from Egypt across a sea, and its erection of a republic in the wilderness; and in the stone cut out of the mountain, or fifth great empire of Nebuchadnezzar's vision; in the ancient days, or fifth empire of Daniel's vision of empires; and in Michael, in his last vision; in the two witnesses; the woman and her twelve stars; in the woman and her man child; in the Old and New Testaments; the man with many diadems on a white horse; and in the sealing of the twelve tribes of Revelation.
An Israel restored was promised by the prophets on a mighty and vast scale, and it was to be a Christian Israel. If we look at our own glorious country, we see clearly a Christian Israel, enjoying the greatest and most glorious of all nationalities. In spite of the actions of the anti‑Christs and the traitors of our White Race who have sold out for 40 pieces of silver; so to speak. Here is a coincidence with the prophets; and here then is their fulfillment. Christ assured His disciples, that the restoration was to be a mystery, and Daniel told that its history, in prophecy, would be concealed, until just before the battle of the Kings; and the blindness on the subject hitherto has resulted from the order of God. This concealment of our country as the Israel restored of the promises, every wise man can see was a prudent measure with reference both to our past and future history. NOW, THEN, AS THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR EXPOSITIONS, CANNOT BE DENIED, AND AS THEY ARE ALL REALIZED IN AMERICA, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS THE PROMISED NATIONALITY TO CHRISTIAN ISRAEL. REGATHERED ISRAEL!
IN CONCLUSION
The "Ancient Principles" of Common Law and the TEN COMMANDMENTS have one unmistakable principle: The protection of PRIVACY. The unanimous Declaration, WE THE PEOPLE, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights all have the same theme.
When Thomas Jefferson penned The Unanimous Declaration he listed approximately thirty reasons why we should separate from England. Each reason involved the direct violation of PRIVACY! PRIVACY is the essential ingredient of FREEDOM! Without PRIVACY, there is no FREEDOM! And without God there is no Liberty.
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Corinthians 3:17)
The British Legal system was the main threat to the PRIVACY of the colonists. Twenty of the approximate thirty reasons listed in The Unanimous Declaration, were objections to oppressive laws and court enforcement procedures. Taxes were not the main issue of the Revolution. They were listed only once. Nor was the British military the main issue, as Washington himself almost joined the English armed forces. The issue was the invasion of PRIVACY! "Leave us alone, let us be FREE," was the cry! PRIVACY and FREEDOM can only be maintained under a JUST court system. This condemnation of the legal system was not the first attempt for simple JUSTICE. Two thousand years ago, we recall the straight talk of JESUS, "WOE UNTO YOU LAWYERS..." (Luke 11:46, 52)
Our forefathers did not want the court to be a feeding trough for lawyers and judges, but rather a place for simple JUSTICE! Neither was it their desire that a judge be a super‑lawyer in a lady's black dress, but rather he was to be an unbiased referee bound by the shackles of the CONSTITUTION! Thus we are forced to face the fact. Our American people, because of false propaganda, no longer know the real purpose of government. Just as the Ten Commandments must be followed by individuals, so Christian Nations to remain Christian, must follow the statutes, laws and judgments of Almighty God; for the keeping of then will result in righteousness, Truth, Honesty, Loyalty and Justice, of its leaders; the True purpose Almighty God set for the outline of government.
After this study of the Christian Foundations of America (Heavenly Kingdom in the Gothic language), one finds Gods purpose in allowing men to set up governments. That with the establishment of the Kingdom of God, upon earth, at Mount Sinai, the people of Israel were organized into a Republican Form of Government. God then set forth perfect laws of justice, which the people were commanded to follow and to see that they were properly administered by their leaders. This form of government, with the Laws handed down to Moses, by God, clearly show that keeping them would bring justice to individuals in their everyday lives; to the nation, as a whole; in the handling of domestic affairs. That without Gods Laws there can be no justice nor tranquility. Only confusion and discord.
Today, our leaders, sitting in Moses Seat, and just as the Pharisees of Christ's day, are administering the laws of Babylon which have been instituted by antichrists, in place of the original Christian Laws which or forefathers wanted for us. Therefore, after consideration, one can clearly see the only real purpose of government is to establish among men a means to bring about such justice and tranquility as God intended for them, from the very beginning. That America is the Israel to come, can even be seen in the beautiful song "America The Beautiful." Which is in actuality a prayer to Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to bless her! If the forgoing is not enough to convince you that America was founded by Christians, upon Christian Principles and Bible Laws; and with Christ as the foundation stone upon which it rests. Then the reproduction of thousands of other documents, both civil and religious would not do more; we leave you with the words of French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, who in 1831 visited the, then, forty year old United States and made the following observation:
"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things...Religion in America takes no direct part in government or society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institu�tions...The sects [different denominations] that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...All the sects of the United States are comprised within the GREAT UNITY OF CHRISTIANITY...I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her rich mines and vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
Finally I offer this supplication on behalf of our White Israel People: Dear God, the Creator of all things, He who brought Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand,
"I pray that You will again turn your face unto thy children, your people, and leave thy wrath that we have caused to be kindled against us and be merciful unto thy nation and again show us our heritage, that we again might walk in Thy Holy Spirit and love Thee above all things, and follow Thy Law, for the sake of Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ and Thy Holy Name. Spare Thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? Please forgive us and accept my supplication. In the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Thine Only Son. Amen!"
AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL
O, Beautiful for spacious skies, (Deut. 33:13)
For amber waves of grain, (Deut. 33:16)
For purple mountain majesties, (Deut. 33:15)
Above the fruitful plain! (Gen. 49:26)
America! America! (Gen. 48:21)
God shed His Grace on thee, (Gen. 48:16)
And crown thy good with brotherhood. (Gen. 48:20)
From sea to shining sea! (Ezekiel 47:18‑20)
O, Beautiful for pilgrim feet, (Deut. 33:13)
Whose stern, impassioned stress, (Gen. 49:23)
A thoroughfare for freedom beat, (Psalm 72:8)
Across the wilderness! (Deut. 32:8‑11)
America! America! (Gen. 48:21)
God mend thine every flaw, (Gen. 49:22‑26)
Confirm thy soul in self‑control, (Isaiah 45:13)
Thy liberty in Law! (2 Cor. 3:17)
O, Beautiful for heroes proved, (2 Chr. 25:6)
In liberating strife, (James 1:25)
Who more than self their country loved, (Rev. 12:11)
And mercy more than life! (Psalm 37:21‑31)
America! America! (2 Samuel 7:10)
May God thy gold refine, (Isaiah 2:7)
'Til all success be nobleness, (Gen. 48:15‑16)
And every gain divine. (Deut. 33:13‑17)
O, Beautiful for patriot dream, (Hebrews 11:9)
That sees beyond the years, (Isaiah 60:21)
Thine Alabester cities gleam, (Rev. 21:18‑20)
Undimned by human tears! (Rev. 7:17)
America! America! (1 Chr. 17:9)
God shed His Grace on thee, (Acts 4:33)
And crown thy good with brotherhood, (Deut. 32:13)
From sea to shining sea! (Micah 7:12)