Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 
	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." 
	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." 
	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.




















































































	Introduction
	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." ; "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." 
	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 . 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,"
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,"  adopted a written representative Republican
federation constitution. The Israelite constitution was submitted to the
tribes for acceptance and ratification ; 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 establishment 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."  
	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,"
 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 Bible
	It is amazing how many millions of Christians over the centuries have
poured over the pages of the Holy Bible without taking note of a
fundamental truth: The Bible is a book written by, for, and about
Israelites. And by this we do not mean the Jews for they are no part of
Israel. While it is possible that this truth may not send spiritual shock
waves through any given congregation, or even any individual, but it should. 
	How people could read the best selling book of all history and not be more
concerned about the subjects of that book remain a mystery. Seldom does one
hear any adverse comment when it is made known that the Koran was written
by and for Arabians. It is common knowledge that the Vedas contain the
sacred scripture for the Hindu people; yet that book proceeded from their
kind and hand is not disputed. 
	People seem to have no trouble relating the Talmud exclusively to the
Jewish synagogue and those who profess Judaism, and as such are called
Jews. We have yet to meet a Christian who wanted to claim the Talmud. The
historical archives confirm that almost all people have strong links to a
particular religious creed. It should not come as a surprise, then, for the
Christian to find that his ties and Biblical roots go back to a people
called Israel. 
	This study is with the purpose that our Christian community learn and
absorb this truth. The Bible is inseparably linked to the people who
comprise the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and kindred family
in the earth. The spiritual eyes of millions of Christians need to be
opened wide to the racial origins of the Bible. The Bible shares a genetic
continuity in history from Genesis to the Revelation Letter. "And he had in
his hand a little book opened" was the statement of John, who in a vision
saw the people of the Book preparing to take its message overseas. History
has since demonstrated the willingness of the White Anglo-Saxon, Germanic,
Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred people to endure the hardships of the
journeys in order to bring others the blessings of the open Book. So long
as that Book continues to remain open in the hands of Almighty God's
people, they are in possession of the perfect guide and chart which will
enable them to follow the course of their God-given heritage to a glorious
destiny.
	Westward, ever westward, has been the course of Empire as the ships of the
People of the Book plowed the seas, bringing our forefathers to the Isles
from whence they set sail to the uttermost parts of the earth. In obedience
to the prophecy of the Scriptures: "Ephraim (Israel) feedeth on wind, and
FOLLOWETH AFTER THE EAST WIND (Always going Westward - ever Westward to the
ends of the earth - the West Coast of the United States of America): he
daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the
Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt." 
	And wherever they went, the open Book accompanied them on their journeys.
As they colonized, they evangelized: proclaiming the truth out of the Book
in their hand! In establishing governments, building cities, organizing
communities and administering law, the guiding hand of Almighty God, whose
purposes were revealed to them through the open Book, enabled His people to
build (Far better than they knew) a type of civilization whose foundation
was to rest upon the administration of righteousness.
	Familiarity with the open Book and the reason for sailing westward is well
illustrated in a statement from the Mayflower Compact of 1620, which began
"In the name of God." It proceeded: "Having undertaken for the glory of
God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our King and
country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern part of
Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God
and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil
body politic."
	It was the knowledge of the teachings of the open Book and the desire to
follow these teachings which brought the Pilgrim fathers to our shores to
build anew a civilization in conformity with the requirements of the law as
set forth in this national document.
	Let us turn back to the time before ever the Bible, as we know it, was
written. In so doing we will discover that the outstanding men of our Race
were pressing forward to a God-given destiny and as they lived, and worked,
and labored, they wrote into the record of the Book their faith, while in
each succeeding generation men of renown carried on the work of faith as
the race continued on towards its destiny. Thus, in an ever-increasing
crescendo the Race of the Book moved forward with the open Book of the Race
which, when finally completed was taken by this Race to the less fortunate,
that they might also freely read and partake of its blessings.
	Amounting almost to a paradox is the fact that the open Book from which we
are now to receive counsel, instruction, advice and guidance today is
largely the history of our race and an account of God's dealing with our
forefathers. But along with the recording of that history the future of the
Race was also pre-written and we will do well to follow the Divine
instruction!
	That Christianity has been the basic historic religion of the Nordic
branch of the Caucasian Race for the past two thousand years is something
worthy of consideration. Moreover, it should occasion no great surprise to
find that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred
people of the earth are more closely linked to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob/Israel of Bible fame than any other people in history Research
confirms that the Israelites of the Old Testament are directly linked to
the Israelites of the New Testament. 
	"STRICTLY SPEAKING IT IS INCORRECT TO CALL AN ANCIENT ISRAELITE A 'JEW' OR
TO CALL A CONTEMPORARY JEW AN ISRAELITE OR A HEBREW." 
	Moreover, the same blood that links Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the twelve
Apostles and early Christians also flows in the blood of the modern day
Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and kindred people of the earth. There is a racial
connection between the subjects of the Bible and the main followers of
Christianity.
	There is a racial significance to the major religions of the world, and no
amount of historical revision will alter this. The religions of Buddhism,
Shintoism, Taoism, and all forms of the transcendental worship are linked
to the Far East. Certainly none of these religions rose out of the
Caucasian world! The Moslem faith arose out of the Arabic world. Judaism
arose out of the Jewish mind. "It is highly probable that the bulk of the
Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine 'at all,' WHICH WITNESSES THE
POWER OF HISTORICAL ASSERTION OVER FACT." 
	Hinduism was not born in the Occidental western Caucasian world.
Historically, one major religion has been associated with the Western
Caucasian world; Christianity. Just as the Moslem faith has followed the
Arabs in their migrations over the earth, Christianity has followed the
Caucasians in their wanderings. Voodooism has always found a home in the
hearts of the black race, but never within the Western Christian world.
There is a positive chemistry between Christianity and the blood of the
Caucasian race. That there might be a link between genetics and faith in
Jesus Christ is something that has yet to be fully explored by those who
major in religious issues.
	Judeo-Christian Heritage is A Hoax: It appears there is no need to belabor
the absurdity and fallacy of the "Judeo-Christian heritage" fiction, which
certainly is clear to all honest theologians. That "Judeo-Christian
dialogue" in this context is also absurd was well stated in the author-
initiative religious journal, Judaism, Winter 1966, by Rabbi Eliezar
Berkowitz, chairman of the department of Jewish philosophy, at the Hebrew
Theological College when he wrote: "As to dialogue in the purely
theological sense, nothing could be more fruitless or pointless. Judaism is
Judaism BECAUSE IT REJECTS CHRISTIANITY; and Christianity is Christianity
BECAUSE IT REJECTS JUDAISM. What is usually referred to as the
JEWISH-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS EXISTS ONLY IN CHRISTIAN OR SECULARIST FANTASY." 
	That the Holy Bible has always been the Book for historic Christianity no
one would deny. And, what people in history have been responsible for the
stewardship, printing, and transmission of the Bible? None other than the
Caucasian peoples of the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred
people of the earth! The Bible has ALWAYS found a home in the heart of the
Caucasian race. Its influence upon the other races has been sparse,
sporadic, transient, and meager at best, the claims of the Judeo-Christian
evangelists on television and radio notwithstanding. The moral values of
the Bible appear to take root ONLY within the minds and hearts of the
Caucasian Race. 
	The fact that the Anglo-Saxons have always been the custodians of the
Bible links them inseparably to the people of God and of Scripture. Lost
Israel has been found: we are they! The Bible is an Israelitish book
written for and about the same people who have always found a place for it
within their homes, churches and public life. It is impossible to give a
true record of Anglo-Saxon activities without always taking into
consideration the Book (Regardless of what the anti-Christs, humanists,
communists and etc., wish you to believe). 
	Wherever this Race has gone, whether the fact of the presence of the Book
is mentioned or not, the writings of this Book and the spirit of its
message have always played a most prominent part in all our undertakings.
The importance of the open Book in the hand of the pioneers of our Race is
clearly and appropriately depicted in the figurehead of the man on the prow
of the sailing ship in whose hand is held the open Book, and who, yet
reading, is moving forward as the vessel sails the sea. This figurehead of
the earthly Americans sailing to our shores should be a continuous reminder
to our generation that this nation was founded upon the Book and God's Laws.
	But the Book has not always been opened. Evil forces have sought again and
again to close it; knowing that, so long as it remains open, the
irresistible forward march of a Race destined to conquer evil and establish
righteousness and peace cannot be stayed! In the early Christian century
the disciples of our Lord brought the open Book to the Isles and to a
people residing in those isles whose forefathers, because of their refusal
to keep His laws, had been led captive into Assyria. 
	From the land of the Assyrians this Race had moved north and west:
migrated through southern and central Europe and, after centuries, finally
reached the isles north and west of Palestine. It was to them who Jesus
sent His disciples to when He told them to go "to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel." To Israel in the Isles they went, and to them they
brought the open Book. Thus, after centuries, the open Book was placed at
the disposal of His people. As a result Christianity took root downward and
grew upward in the isles of the sea. A few centuries passed during which
Christianity flourished in the Isles, then the Book was again closed. 
	During the period known as the Dark Ages the light of spirituality was all
but extinguished, for there was no open Book to which the people might have
access. The Bible had been written in a language which the common people
did not understand and chained to the altar of the Church. This period of
darkness ended in a spiritual revolution.
	Society of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was agitated to its
profoundest depths as the Reformation began. The invention of the printing
press had reduced the Bible from the bulky hand-written Book to a little
Book and translated into the common language of the masses: placing it in
the hands of the people, opened, that all might read its contents. John saw
a Mighty One holding that Book open. Men now had access to the Bible and
the result, insofar as evil forces were concerned, was to arouse them to
frenzy, for they knew that the open Book spelled disaster to all their
plans. The Spanish Armada was equipped and launched with the avowed purpose
of forever closing that Book. But it was to remain open and no physical
power on earth could stop the Reformation.
	With the opening of the Book there began a period of activity for the
Anglo-Saxon-Israel people, first to acquire a knowledge of what was written
therein and afterwards to spread that knowledge throughout the world. Such
was the task assigned to this people of whom the Lord said through Isaiah
the Prophet: "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my
servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of
Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest
be my salvation unto the end of the earth." 
	In fulfillment of that mission the Anglo-Saxon peoples have taken the
Bible and translated it into over a thousand different languages and in
their missionary activities given it to the nations. Missionary Societies
in Great Britain and in the United States of America have, for over a
century, been actively carrying out the mission laid upon His Israel people.
	Upon careful examination, the Bible proves to be the family history of one
people; the Israel people of God. And touches the other races only when
they come into contact with the people of the book, the Israelites. The
Bible refers to many people and nations, but its primary focus is always
Israel. The Bible is the manufacturer's handbook for His people in time and
creation. Everything that Israel needs to know for this life is contained
within the canon of the Bible, a book that has been Divinely inspired and
preserved throughout time. 
	The Holy Bible is intended to enable the Israelite people to be thocrats
(ruled by God) in this earth. Its principles, laws, and precepts govern
every area of life. All of man's is couched by God's Word. There is no
escape from the Holy Scriptures, for they follow man and government him in
every possible area. Scripture is both infallible and unchangeable because
it issues from a sovereign God. The key to a successful and prosperous life
is to read meditate, memorize, and apply Scripture to every area of one's
life. The early chapters of Genesis cover the creation of the universe, the
vegetable and animal kingdom, and the final work of God's hand in the
creation of man. The fall of Adam and the Genesis Flood are all a major
focus of the early portion of Genesis. The post flood history of nations,
the building of the Tower of Babel, and the multiplication of nations and
people are covered in these early chapters. Beginning with Genesis 12, the
remainder of the Bible IS FOCUSED ON ABRAHAM AND HIS OFFSPRING. 
	Abraham became the father of eight sons born to three different women:
Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah. Only one of these sons become the focus of the
Bible. The birth of Isaac, the seed of promise which God made with Abraham
and Sarah, becomes the object of the Bible. Like a giant laser beam, the
Holy Scriptures zero in on the PROMISE SEED OF ABRAHAM. Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob/Israel become the central focus of the bible from Genesis 12 to the
remainder of the Bible. Every mention of other people and nations is always
in relationship to Israel, and their interaction with the primary focus of
the Bible.
	Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, became the father of twelve
sons. They are, beginning with the eldest: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah,
Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. These
twelve men became heads of twelve tribes that multiplied into a mighty
nation numbering just short of three million people at the time of the
exodus from Egypt. In subsequent history, millions of these Israelites
populated the earth. 
	In Genesis 13:16 Abraham is promised that his seed will number as the dust
of the earth. Genesis 15:5 records the promise that Abraham's seed would
become as populace as the stars of the sky. Genesis 22:17 confirms that the
seed of Abraham would become numbered like the sands of the sea shore.
Rebekah was prophesied to be the mother of thousands of millions in Genesis
24:60. God promised Jacob that he would become a nation and A COMPANY OF
NATIONS in Genesis 35:11. From Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh would
come A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS. 
	A number of questions flow out of these Biblical promises made to Abraham
and his seed. Where are the thousands of millions who were to spring from
Isaac and Rebekah? What people make up the COMPANY OF NATIONS promised
Jacob/Israel? Where is the MULTITUDE OF NATIONS that were to spring from
Ephraim and Manasseh? We need to account for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
to fulfill all of the promises and covenants of the Bible! 
	The people known in modern history as "Jews" have NEVER at any time
fulfilled the promises made to Abraham. However, they have been found among
the multiplied missions that constitute the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic,
Scandinavian, and kindred people of the earth. Lost Israel has been found,
and the Bible is the record of these people It is time that their discovery
as the subjects of the Bible be known to all who have spiritual eyes to see
and ears to hear.
	The Bible is indeed an Israelitish book. Every author of Scripture
descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. The family history of the
Israelite Race of people is contained within the pages of the Holy Bible.
The Bible is the composite history and genealogical record of Israel. The
genealogical records of Egypt, Babylon, China, Japan, and the other nations
is missing from the Bible BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT THEIR RECORD! 
	The first five books of the Bible or Law, is said to have been written by
Moses, an Israelite. The historical records of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I and
II Samuel, I and Ii Kings, I and II Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah focus on
the Israelites descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. All of the
books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon flow
from the pen of inspired Israelite writers. Every prophet of Scripture was
an Israelite raised up to prophesy to either or both Judah and Israel, the
two primary families within Israel.
	The New Testament is no exception to all that has previously been
confirmed about the Bible. Every writer of the New Testament was an
Israelite. All of the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation Letter are
inspired and preserved records of the Israelite people. There is no book
and no writer of the New Testament who does not have racial roots into the
stock of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel From the first chapter in
Matthew's Gospel to the final restoration of the twelve tribes in a new
heaven and new earth in Revelation 21, the New Testament is an Israelitish
book. To make the family history of the Bible include the entire world is
to wreck and ruin the entire plan of a supernatural and provident God.
Failure to correctly identify Biblical Israel and understand the Bible
message has resulted in the Church world seeking to build a program of
world evangelism. 
	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." 
	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 . 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.  
	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 .
	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.  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
"embarrassment 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. 
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." ; "...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." ; "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." 
	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 . 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 . 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  and in the teaching of Jesus
concerning taking cases to the people .
	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
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 . Any attempt to prohibit the
right of an individual to own arms was unbiblical and is a pagan attempt to
centralize power .
	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.  God created all things, He is reflected in His creation.
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 Confederation 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." 
	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 MISCONSTRUCTION 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.















































Chapter One
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." 
THE COVENANT
	"...if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise."  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." 
	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."  
	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." 
	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: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."
	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 . 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  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 . 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  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." 
	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." 
	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." 
	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." 
	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." 
	And: "I [Christ] AM SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL'S HOUSE." 
	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." 
	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..." 
	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 . 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.  
	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 . 
	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." 
	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 JERUSALEM 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 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." 
	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]." 
	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 .
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." 
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 , 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  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 .
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  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 . 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  as God gathers the
nations of the earth for the battle of Armageddon . 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 . The purity
of our Israelite people is threatened by race mixing . The blood of
innocents, including aborted babies, is a part of America's national shame
. The people are adulterous and practice prostitution . Our people worship
false gods and are guilty of idolatry . Our people are guilty of possessing
a rebellious heart . Our whole nation is wallowing in covetousness . Our
nation has refused the Word of God and have rejected His Laws . Our leaders
have oppressed the fatherless and the widow and shed the blood of the
innocent . 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 . Our nation has rejected correction, truth has all but
perished, and the Temple of God is a polluted house . Our preachers and
pastors preach smooth things and refuse to preach against sin, they can not
even blush . God's sheep are scattered and the pastors do not seek God's
people . Our people follow the customs of the heathen and decorate trees in
their homes .
	Our Israelite people have broken covenant with God, and a conspiracy of
evil men rule the nation . The sin of usury is condoned in the land . Our
nation has profaned the Holy Sabbath by buying and selling on this holy day
. Profanity and swear words fill the land . 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 . And in spite of the
treachery of these false prophets and lying priests, our people are content
. 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 APPALLING
	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." 
	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.



































































	Chapter Two
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 mere 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."




































	Chapter Three
	AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION
	"The more thoroughly a nation deals with its history, the more decidedly
will it recognize and own an over-ruling Providence therein, and the more
religious a nation will it become; while the more superficially it deals
with its history, seeing only secondary causes and human agencies, the more
irreligious will it be." 
	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." ; "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." 
	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." 
	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." 
NOT ONE PASTOR IN 100,000 WILL TEACH OR PREACH THESE VERSES BECAUSE OF
THEIR COWARDICE!	In 1789, America recognized only male members of the White
Race as being able to establish a righteous criteria for voting, as
citizens of the State wherein they resided. Women did not vote because they
still obeyed the Word of God and were under the Biblical covers of their
fathers and husbands. "...that women adorn themselves in modest apparel,
with shamefacedness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or
pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness)
with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be
in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 
	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..." 
	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." 
	That government is ordained of God is a Biblical precept beyond reasonable
controversy . 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 .
	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 .
	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." 
	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." 
	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." 
	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."  
	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." 
	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." 
	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..." 
	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." 
	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?" 
	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."  
	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..." 
	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 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..." 
	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..." 
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 progressive in
modern civilization first appeared in the world. At that time, social order
rested on the assumed natural inequality of men. The individual was
regarded as of value only as he formed a part of the political fabric, and
was able to contribute to its uses, as though it were the end of his being
to aggrandize the State. This was the pagan idea of man.
	The wisest philosophers of antiquity could not rise above it. Its
influence imbued the pagan world. The State regarded as of paramount
importance, not the man, but the citizen whose physical and intellectual
forces it absorbed. 
	If this tended to foster lofty civic virtues and splendid individual
culture in the classes whom the State selected as the recipients of its
favors, it bore hard on those whom the State virtually ignored, on laboring
men, mechanics, the poor, captives in war, slaves, and woman. This low view
of man was exerting its full influence when Rome was at the height of its
power and glory.            
	Christianity then appeared with its central doctrine, that man was created
in the Divine image, and destined for immortality; pronouncing, that, in
the eye of God, all men are equal. This asserted for the individual an
independent value. It occasioned the great inference, that man is superior
to the State, which ought to be fashioned for his use. This was the advent
of a new spirit and a new power in the world. The struggle between the
pagan and Christian elements was severe. 
	In four centuries, civil society was transformed from the pagan basis to
that of Christianity. But, long after Rome had crumbled, the influence of
Paganism, under various forms, continued to operate; and especially the
idea, that man was made for the State, the office of which, or of a divine
right vested in one, or in a privileged few, was to fashion the thought and
control the action of the many. 
	Its embodiment in arbitrary power, both in ecclesiastical and political
affairs, continued to oppress and benumb the intellect, until the
Reformation roused a spirit of activity in the bosom of the Church.
	The new life thus started in the domain of religion soon communicated
itself to other provinces...There then rose, above the low level of a
corrupt political world, a class of thinkers who grasped the idea that the
State ought to exist for man; that justice, protection, and the common
good, ought to be the aim of government...Among them were John Milton,
imbued with the very spirit of the Reformation, who defended the noble
thesis, that freedom is the native right of man, and gave the world a
mighty and still unsurpassed plea for liberty of utterance; John
Locke...was so successful in catching and expressing the liberal spirit of
his age, in his work on Civil Government, that it became the platform of a
great political party, and gradually widened out into an influence that
operated far beyond the thought or the theory of its adherents; so that,
Hallam says, 'while silently spreading its fibers from its roots over
Europe and America, it prepared the way for theories hardly bolder in their
announcement, but expressed with more passionate ardor, from which the last
and present age have sprung.' This historical judgment is applicable to a
line of illustrious characters, who grasped the Christian idea of man; and,
because of the brilliancy of their service in behalf of human rights, they
deserve a place among the morning stars of the American constellation." 
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."  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." 
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." 
	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..." 
	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..." ; "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, . 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." 
	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." 
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." 
	What does Justice Chase mean? "The Christian Religion is the established
religion by OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT?"
	Isn't it true that Christians believe that our Father is composed of three
co-equal parts in one whole: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? Isn't
this a major tenet of the Christian Faith? The Constitution of Delaware
(1776) clearly points out that this is a part of the Christian faith
embraced by our forefathers. It requires that the following declaration be
made before taking a seat in the legislature, entering upon the execution
of an office, or occupying a place of trust in the Delaware government, to
wit: "I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and Jesus Christ His only
Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do
acknowledge the Holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by
divine inspiration." 
	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." 
	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." ; "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." 
	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" 
	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." 
	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." ; "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." ; "...I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other
people." ; "...so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the
people that are upon the face of the earth." 
	Satan's form of government will not and cannot tolerate individual
responsibility and liberty, nor will it tolerate their mandatory
corollaries: purity, cleanliness and obedience to God. A citizen in Satan's
government has no responsibility and no liberty; only the duties of a slave
under compelled performance. By way of contrast, our Father's form of
government is founded upon the principle of total decentralization with
complete individual responsibility and self-government; that is, unfettered
liberty with corresponding responsibilities and duties, but no compelled
performance except by contract. Our Father's government demands complete
separation of the races. Satan's government demands mixing of the races.
Satan's government also allows, encourages and finances the destruction of
your children and would-be grand children through abortion. Think about the
contrasts in that. Satan is the destroyer and he persuades you to exercise
your own free will and destroy yourself by going after "strange flesh" and
"evil practices." What is abortion if it isn't ritual murder and child
sacrifice? 
	The principles of the Father's word demand separation in all things as a
prerequisite to achieving order and harmony. Satan demands the mixing of
all things as a prerequisite to achieving confusion and ultimately your
destruction. One of Satan's ancient names is "the chaos monster." 
	The name perfectly describes his nature and purpose. But the choice is
always yours and it is always couched in terms of whether you will or will
not obey the Father's Law. In other words, your free will is still intact
and the test of it is the willingness of your heart to adhere to and obey
the Father's law as the focal point and guide for your life. For it is our
own disobedience to the Father's Life Law that has allowed the Socialists
Communists to dismantle our Christian Republic. The Socialists/Communists
are accomplishing the implementation of Satan's form of government and all
the necessary steps thereto [listed above] through their understanding and
manipulation of Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution for the United
States of America. "The United States shall guarantee to every state in
this Union a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive [when the Legislature cannot be convened] against domestic
Violence." 
	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..." ; "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 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." ; "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." 
	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..." 
	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 REGULATED LIBERTY." 
	"It is remarkable how men of comprehensive views, and free from sectarian
bias, have agreed with regard to The Republicanism of Christianity.
'Christianity,' says Montesquieu, 'is a stranger to despotic power.' 'The
religion,' says De Tocqueville, '...which declares that all are equal in
the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are
equal in the eyes of the law. Religion is the companion of liberty in all
its battles and all its conflicts; the cradle of its infancy and the divine
source of its claims.' 'The friends of liberty in France are accustomed to
speaking in enthusiastic commendation of the Republicanism of the
Scriptures.' The Abbe' de la Mennais, acknowledge as one of the most
powerful minds in Europe, little as he regards Christianity as a revelation
from God, familiarly speaks of its Author as 'The Great Republican.' Our
own De Witt Clinton said, 'Christianity, in its essence, its doctrines, and
its forms, is republican.'... 
	The tendency of the True Gospel principles is to bring the most absolute
despotism under the limits of law; to imbue limited monarchies more and
more with the spirit of popular institutions; to prepare the people to
govern themselves; and finally to establish everywhere the spirit and the
reality, if not the very forms of a republic.
	Let us turn once more to the republican features of the churches organized
by the Apostles. These churches had officers, which were to be regarded and
observed, in their proper sphere, as much as the officers of any other
republic. But the manner of their ruling was not to be as 'Lords over God's
heritage;' 'Whosoever will be chief among you,' said the Savior, 'let him
be your servant.'
	The Apostles themselves gave several striking illustrations of their
regard for popular rights. The first public act of the Church, after our
Lord's Ascension, was the choice of an Apostle in the place of Judas {The
Traitor -- The only 'Jew' among them}. Peter stands up in the midst of the
disciples - the number of names together was about one hundred and twenty -
and proposes the matter. The election is made by the body of the Church...
	The accurate historian Mosheim thus states the conclusions to which his
own mind came after a most thorough investigation. 'In these primitive
times... the highest authority was in the people, or the whole body of
Christians; for even the Apostles themselves inculcated by their example,
that nothing of moment was to be done or determined but with the knowledge
and consent of the brotherhood...The people did everything that is proper
for those in whom the supreme power of the community is vested.'
	Neander, the most distinguished ecclesiastical historian of the present
day, says, 'Each individual Church which had a Bishop or Presbyter of its
own, assumed to itself the form and rights of a little distinct republic or
commonwealth; and with regard to its internal concerns, was wholly
regulated by a code of laws, that, if they did not originate with, had at
least received the sanction of the people constituting such Church.'" 
	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." ; "Locke, in
particular, was the authority to whom the Patriots paid greatest deference.
He was the most famous of seventeenth century democratic theorists, and his
ideas had their due weight with the colonists. Almost every writer seems to
have been influenced by him, many quoted his words, and the argument of
others shows the unmistakable imprint of his philosophy. 
	The first great speech of Otis was wholly based upon Locke's ideas; Samuel
Adams, on the 'Rights of the Colonists as Men and as British Subjects,'
followed the same model. Many of the phrases of the Declaration of
Independence may be found in Locke's Treatise; there is hardly any
important writer of this time who does not openly refer to Locke, or
tacitly follow the lead he had taken. The argument in regard to the
limitations upon Parliament was taken from Locke's reflections on the
'supreme legislature' and the necessary restrictions upon its authority. 
	No one stated more strongly than did he the basis for the doctrine that
'taxation without representation is tyranny.' No better epitome of the
Revolutionary  theory could be found than in John Locke on civil government." 
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.  "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." ; "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..." ; "The words 'people of
the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same
thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our
Republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and
conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we
familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this
people and a constituent member of this sovereignty." ; "...at that time
[it] was perfectly understood to be confined to the White Race; and that
they alone constituted the sovereignty of the Government." ; "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..." ; "...
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." 
	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: THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN, FOR THE PREAMBLE PEOPLE AND "THEIR
POSTERITY" WHO WERE 99.9%  PURE WHITE ANGLO-SAXON, GERMANIC, SCANDINAVIAN,
CELTIC AND KINDRED PEOPLE. THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AFTER THE BIBLE  -  THE STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE! FOR EVERYTHING IN AMERICA
IN 1789."It is certainly very material that the true doctrines of liberty,
as exemplified in our political systems, should 
be inculcated on those who are to sustain and may administer it ...Sidney
and Locke are admirably calculated to impress on young minds the right of
nations to establish their own governments, and to inspire a love of free
ones..." 
	Our political, educational and spiritual institutions were established by
the moral-legal standards of the Great Book of Divine Truth. In 1789, the
Lord Jesus Christ was considered the King of America; the people, for the
most part, were Christians; the civil and Eccleiastical leaders were
Christian Men who feared God and revered the Bible.
	Most of the governments of the world have preached, but never practiced
some of the Ten Commandments. All have enforced against their citizens laws
against theft and murder. But they have not themselves abided by these
ethical principles. All of the ancient and modern dictatorships; All
tyrannical and oppressive governments, even the Communist ones -- have been
based upon a vicious double standard of ethics. 
	The un-Christian principle that the citizen shall respect the life and
license of the governing despots, but that the governing despots shall not
be bound to respect the life and liberty of its citizens. For a citizen to
cheat the government is everywhere a crime against the state: but where,
except under the American Constitution, is it illegal for the government to
confiscate the property or life of the citizen at the will of the governing
elite. 
	Where except in America do we find the Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill"
and "Thou shalt not steal" recognized and revered as a Higher Law, issuing
from a Divine Lawgiver, with which our human lawmakers may not tamper with
or transgress? Even in England or Canada, man- made law is supreme.
Parliament's power is, absolute, even against common rights and reason. "In
every government there are three sorts of power:
	1). The legislative;
	2). The executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and
	3). The executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law.
	By virtue of the first, the prince of magistrate enacts temporary or
perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have already been
enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies,
establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the
third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between
individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other
simply the executive power of the state. The political liberty of the
subject is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has
of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the
government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another. When
the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or n
the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because
apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact
tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
	Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from
the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the
life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for
the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive
power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.
	There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body,
whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers,
that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolution, and of
trying the causes of individuals..." 
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?"
 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. 
	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." 
	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.  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  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.  "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the
age of thirty years..." 
	The seventy men of the elders [senate] of the people and officers were to
be brought to the tabernacle of the congregation, that they might stand
there with Moses. 
	In other words they were to be solemnly inaugurated and consecrated to
this service, that they might be a permanent council, to assist Moses in
governing the people. Yet these men were not chosen by God alone. That the
people concurred in the election of these men is evident from the
scriptures given above. It is further evident Moses was not charged with
appointing the senate, but only with assembling it. It must, also, be borne
in mind, that the senate was not the government itself; it was only a part
of the nation, the legislative part, of the general population. With that
information we can also see that the people themselves were considered the
actual government. And elected representatives [senate and representatives]
to take care of day to day business, just as the people of America do
today. For in all important questions, its decisions were to be submitted
to the congregation, who, by its approbation, enacted them into laws. That
this is true, we have a clear proof related in the Twentieth Chapter of
Judges, where the ancient Israelites are recorded to have called upon the
general assembly of the people to deliberate upon the matter and make their
decision.
	Even when they demanded a king, they did not wish to change this portion
of the laws, so the king's authority was not to be allowed to be despotic
nor arbitrary. The senate, was composed of the most distinguished members
of all the tribes, and served the king as a council. Much the same as the
senate today serves the president. 
	The king took their advice in all important affairs; and if anything
occurred which was of interest to the entire nation the congregation, that
is to say, an assembly of the general public was called. The senate
proposed, the congregation decided, and the king executed. This is where
the authority of our president to be the chief executive officer and the
head of the justice department originated. 
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. 
	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  all our fears and difficulties will vanish; for this circumstance
alone must convince any one, that Moses could only have addressed himself
to a certain number of persons, deputed to represent the rest of the
Israelites, Accordingly, in Number. 1:16, we find mention of such men. 
	In contradistinction to the common Israelites, they are there nominated
'those wont to be called to the convention.' In the 16th chapter of the
same book, verse 2, they are styled 'princes of the assembly, famous in the
congregation, men of renown.' I [call your] notice [to] this passage
particularly, because it appears, that two hundred and fifty persons of
this description, who rose up against Moses, and become to him objects of
extreme terror; which they could not have been, if their voices had not
been, at the same time, the voices of their families and tribes. Still more
explicit, and to the point, is the passage, Deuteronomy 29:10, where Moses,
in a speech to the whole people, says, 'Ye stand this day all of you before
the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes [chief men of the tribes]
your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel. Your little
ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, the hewer of thy
wood unto the drawer of thy water.' Now as Moses could not possible speak
loud enough to be heard by two and one-half million people it must be
evident, that the first-named men represented the people, to whom they
again repeated the words of Moses. Whether these representatives were on
occasion obliged to collect and declare the sentiments of their
constituents, or whether, like the members of the Congress, they acted in
the scope of their own power for the general good, without taking
instructions from their constituents, I find no where expressly determined;
but, methinks, from a perusal of the Bible, I can scarcely doubt, that the
latter was the case. Who these representatives were, may, in some measure,
be understood from Joshua 23:2 and 24:1. They would seem to have been of
two sorts. To some, their office as judges gave them a right to appear in
the assembly; and these were not necessarily of the same family in which
they exercised that office. Others again, had a seat and a voice in the
diet, as the heads of families."
	The particular construction of the representatives of the Israelite
government, as to the men who comprised it, is really not important. The
important part is what function and power that body of men exercised. These
were of a grave and important kind, which was to show the sovereignty of
the people under their form of government. An instance of the power these
representatives had is evident in the story of Saul and Jonathan in 1
Samuel 14:24-25.
	It is of interest to note that the people did not rescue Jonathan by force
or violence; the rescue was effected by petition. It was the voice of
authority, clear and strong in an expression of undenied right. Neither was
the expression, "there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground,"
an act of mutiny or rebellion, it was simply a statement of authority.
Authority that even the king appears not to wish to oppose. Therefore, we
are left with the conclusion, it was an exercise of rightful authority,
whereby the unconscious offender was pardoned, and the sentence of death
was reversed by the representatives of the tribes of Israel. That it was,
indeed, the representatives of the people is seen by the statement: "Draw
ye near hither, all the chief of the people."
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." 
	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,  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  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 .
	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 . 
	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..." 
	President George Washington replied to Charles Thomson, Secretary of the
Congress, who had been appointed by Congress to carry to Washington the
official information of his unanimous election to the office of President:
"I have been accustomed to pay so much respect to the opinion of my
fellow-citizens that the knowledge of their having given their unanimous
suffrages in my favor scarcely leaves me the alternative for an option. I
can not, I believe, give a greater evidence of my sensibility of the honor
which they have done me than by accepting the appointment." 
	Then in his very first Inaugural Address, Washington stated: "Among the
vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater
anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your
order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand,
I was summoned by my country, whose voice [the peoples' voice] I can never
hear but with veneration and love...Such being the impressions under which
I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present
station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act
my fervent supplications to that ALMIGHTY BEING WHO RULES OVER THE
UNIVERSE, WHO PRESIDES IN THE COUNCILS OF NATIONS, AND WHOSE PROVIDENTIAL
AIDS CAN SUPPLY EVERY HUMAN DEFECT, THAT HIS BENEDICTION MAY CONSECRATE TO
THE LIBERTIES AND HAPPINESS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES Government
instituted by themselves for these essential purposes and may enable every
instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the
functions allotted to His charge. In tendering this homage to THE GREAT
AUTHOR OF EVERY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GOOD, I assure myself that it expresses
your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at
large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore THE
INVISIBLE HAND WHICH CONDUCTS THE AFFAIRS OF MEN MORE THAN THOSE OF THE
UNITED STATES. 
	Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent
nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential
Agency ...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious SMILES
OF HEAVEN can ever be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal
rules of order and right which HEAVEN ITSELF HAS ORDAINED [Washington
acknowledges his and America's subservience to God's Laws] and since the
preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the
republican model of government are just considered, perhaps, as deeply, as
finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American
people...I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more
to THE BENIGN PARENT OF THE HUMAN RACE IN HUMBLE SUPPLICATION THAT, SINCE
HE HAS BEEN PLEASED TO FAVOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR
DELIBERATING IN PERFECT TRANQUILLITY, AND DISPOSITIONS FOR DECIDING WITH
UNPARALLELED UNANIMITY ON A FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE SECURITY OF THEIR
UNION AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF THEIR HAPPINESS [ownership of land], SO HIS
DIVINE BLESSING MAY BE EQUALLY CONSPICUOUS IN THE ENLARGED VIEWS, the
temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this
Government must depend." 
	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.
	Chapter Four
	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." ; "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." ; "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." 
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." 
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." ; "Our popular government lay in embryo on board the
Mayflower, all-environed 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. ; 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.  A similar
writing, A Bill of Rights, was drafted for his successors.  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  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  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 . 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.  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.  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..."  
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." 
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." 
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 establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE.'" 
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 compensation."
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." 
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  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." 
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." 
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?" 
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..."
   VIRGINIA: 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; BUT THEY ARE DESPERATELY
AFRAID THAT YOU MIGHT FIND OUT THAT CHRISTIANS ORGANIZED OUR AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT AND THAT CHRISTIANS ORGANIZED THAT GOVERNMENT UPON JESUS CHRIST,
THE BIBLE AND BIBLE LAWS!!!
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. 
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 leadership
would be firmly grounded in Christianity. 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 MEASURES."
This is based upon the Biblical standards as set out in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy.
	"Just balances, just weights...shall ye have..." ; "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." ; "A false
balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight." ; "A
just weight and balance are the Lord's." ; "Divers weights, and divers
measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord." 
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." 
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..." 
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." 
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."  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. 
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?" 
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.  The Supreme Court has declared that the United States of America
is a Christian Nation. 
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." 
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
Christianity 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
government 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." ; 
		"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." ; "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." 
	     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 officers...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 Constitution, 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 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 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, Christianity 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 heardst, 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 , 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
contemptuously 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 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 deliverance, 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, Mohammedanism 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 liberties...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 neighborhood.
	     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 Christendom. 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. 
	     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 Parliament...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, strengthening 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." 
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." 
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." 
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 . 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." 
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 sovereignties, 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 constitutions,
remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to
the government of the United States." 
	     "Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country;
and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution 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." 
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.  No aggressive wars
were to be allowed.  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." ; "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the
sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a
perpetual covenant." 
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."  
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.
	DEFINITIONS
To start this portion of the study, we must first define the meanings of
words and of the idioms and expressions used by the people in Bible times,
not in todays language. We must also learn of the warnings of the Scripture
which applied to the people in those days as well as to now, so that we
will be able to properly understand what we are being told in the Bible.
     DAY: First let us establish what is meant by the word "day." There are
two primary periods of time that are called "day." There is the 24 hour
period              of time that it takes for the earth to make one
complete rotation of the sun. "And the evening and the morning were the
fourth day."  Notice that the            evening comes first, and morning
came second. This is consistent throughout all the Genesis One accounts.
Secondly, there is that period of time when the sun lights any given face
of the earth, which we call daytime. "Jesus answered, are there not twelve
hours in a day?" 
	"...as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so
shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth." 
In these passages, Christ is clarifying the fact that there are two
separate and distinct periods of a 24 hour day; light, which is called
"day" and "darkness," which is called "night." 
     EVENING AND MORNING: There are two other periods of time in a 24 hour
day whose duration never changes; they always remain a 12 hour
               period. These 12 hour periods are called "evening" and
"morning." The Bible tells us: "The evening and the morning were the fifth
day."                               "Evening" is the 12 hour period that
starts when the sun is at its highest point, which is called the "apex" or
"meridian." Colloquially,                                  people often say
"high noon" or "12 o'clock noon." Immediately after that point, the sun
starts its decline or descent (which in the
   Scripture is called "the going down of the sun") and ends 12 hours later
at the time that we call "midnight."
"Morning" is the corresponding 12 hour period that starts at 12 o'clock
midnight and ends at 12 o'clock noon; i.e., when the sun again reaches its
meridian. 
Therefore the 12 hour period that is called "evening" is referred to as
"p.m." which means "post meridiem" (afternoon) and the 12 hour period that
is called "morning" is referred to as "a.m." which means "ante meridiem"
(before noon). 
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the following: 
	"even" (as a noun): "1). The decline of the sun..."; "decline" (verb
intransitive): "To lean downward; to bring down; 2). To bend to one  side;
to move from a fixed point or right line."
Here we see Webster defining "even" as "the decline of the sun:" the time
when it moves from a fixed point directly perpendicular to the earth, which
is called a "right line" or "right angle" and "bends down" toward the earth. 
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines: "even" (the adverb): 2). "noting
equality or sameness of time..."
Here we see an "equal" period of time before and after "even." When the sun
is at its apex, which is at 12:00 o'clock noon, the daylight portion of a
day is divided into two "even" parts. The time from sunrise to noon is
equal to the time from noon to sunset. We hear the following expressions
almost daily:
	"At 2 o'clock this morning, I heard a strange noise outside, so I got out
of bed to see what it was."
	"Wake me at 3:30 in the morning so we can get an early start on our trip."
	"The next time my son stays out until 1:00 in the morning, he will be
punished severely."
	"Will you meet me at 11 o'clock this morning for an early lunch?"
	"Please wake me at 6:30 this morning so I won't be late for work."
	"Will you pick me up at 5 o'clock this evening (or this afternoon)?"
	"Dinner will be served at 7:30 this evening; don't be late."
Today, in the Deep South of the United States many people still say: "Have
a good evening" any time they greet someone after 12 noon. To properly
understand the Bible, it is vitally important that we recognize that the
periods of time that are called "day," "night," "evening," and "morning"
are four separate and distinct periods of time, and that they refer to four
separate portion of the 24 hour day. 
To properly understand the Bible, it is even more important that we
understand and realize that the 24 hour period that we call a "day" starts
at 12 o'clock noon, and that the daylight portion that is called "day," (as
opposed to "night") starts at sunrise. You will find there is a DAY portion
of EVENING and a NIGHT portion of EVENING; also that there is a NIGHT
portion of MORNING and a DAY portion of MORNING which are separate and
distinct portions of the 24 hour day. Notice in that "Day" (which is
referring to the daylight portion) is divided into two equal or even parts
(high noon) and this division is often referred to in the Bible as "even."
We see this in the following verses:
	"...David said unto Jonathan...let me go that I may hide myself in the
field unto the third day AT EVEN...It came to pass IN THE MORNING, that
Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David..." ;
"...the children of Israel...kept the passover...AT EVEN..." [even: #6153]
; "...Israel shall kill [the passover] IN THE EVENING." [evening: #6153]. ;
"...there thou salt sacrifice the passover AT EVEN, at the going down of
the sun..."  
Equinox: Day and night are of equal length. March 21st & September 23rd -
Webster's 1828 Dictionary. John 11:9 - Christ said: 
	"Are there not twelve hours in the day?" 
Matthew 12:40 - Christ said: 
	"For as Jonahs was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so
shall the son of man be three days and nights in the heart of the earth."
We see by the Scriptural verses that Jesus Christ recognized that there is
night and that there is day, and also that there are twelve hours in the
day. If there are 24 hours from sun to sun and if there are, as Christ said, 
	"...twelve hours in the day" then we know that there are also twelve hours
in the night. Technically, this only applies to two days out of the year:
spring and fall 'equinox,' when day and night are of equal duration. We all
know that in the summer the daylight portion is much longer than the dark
portion of the day and that the reverse is the case in the winter." 
We see also in John 11:9 and Matthew 12:40 that Christ was saying that He
was going to spend three days of 12 hours each for a subtotal of 36
daylight hours in the grave and three nights of 12 hours each for an
additional 36 hours, not Friday night to Sunday morning as most preachers
teach from their pulpits.
	"...in the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him." ; "...David said
unto Jonathan...Let  me go that I may hide myself in the field unto the
third day at even." ; "Wherefore now rise up early in the morning with thy
master's servants that are come with thee; and as soon as ye be up early in
the morning, and have light, depart." ; "...the priests...killed the
passover...and they roasted the passover with fire according to the
ordinance...and divided them speedily among all the people...the priests...
were busied in offering of burnt offerings and the fat until night...so all
the service of the Lord was prepared the same day..." ; "...in the morning,
rising up a great while before day, [Jesus] went out, and departed into a
solitary place, and there prayed." ; "...as soon as the morning was light,
the men were sent away..." ; "...when the morning is light, they practice
[iniquity]..." ; "...they abused her all night until the morning: and when
the day began to spring [#5927; to  ascend], they let her go." 
   Even and Evening: The reason that there is so much confusion about the
words "even" and "evening" as they are translated in the Bible is because
there are over 40 different Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek words which are all
translated as "even" or "evening," {six of which refer to a time of day}
and some of these words are translated as both "even" and "evening" which
further adds to the confusion. Therefore, we must look at the words "even"
and "evening" EACH AND EVERY TIME IT IS USED and then check the original
word to see what is meant and HOW IT APPLIES IN THE CONTEXT of that
particular Scriptural passage.
   Days: God gave us the lights of the heavens; the sun, moon and stars to
help us to determine seasons, DAYS and years. We are told in Genesis
1:14-19 that:
	"...God said let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the
day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for SEASONS, and for
days, and years...and it was so..."
In Psalms 104:19 we learn that God "...appointed the moon for seasons..."
Astronomers determine YEARS by the position of the stars; SEASONS by the
moon; and DAYS by the sun. 
God gave us the sun to tell us when our 24 hour day is to begin.
Astronomers around the world use the sun, when it is at its "meridian,"
which is what we call "high noon," to set the clocks of the world. Why do
they always use high noon? Because high noon never changes. No matter where
you are on the face of the earth, on any and every day of the year, the sun
always reaches its "apex" or "meridian" at 12 o'clock noon. Everyone can
tell when it is noon by observing the sun, and thereby knowing that a new
24 hour day has begun.
Even: The going down of the sun: In figure #4 you will see that at sunrise
the sun is in its ascent or is climbing. It continues to climb until it
reaches high noon, at which time it starts its descent or starts going
down. This descent is often referred to in Scripture as "even, the going
down of the sun." Examples are:
	"...there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at EVEN, AT THE GOING DOWN OF
THE SUN." ; "...[King Ahab] died at EVEN...and there went out a
proclamation...about THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN..." ; "...the king of Israel
stayed...up in his chariot...until EVEN; and about the time of the SUN
GOING DOWN he died." 
The sun starts going down at about 12:01, just after noon. More examples
are as follows:
	"And when the sun WAS GOING DOWN, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo,
an horror of great darkness fell upon him." ; "...there thou shalt
sacrifice the passover AT EVEN [Strong's 6153], at the GOING DOWN OF THE
SUN...and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents." ; "...it
came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark [i.e.,
shaded] before [i.e., at the front of] the Sabbath, I commanded that the
gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after
the Sabbath..." ; "And it came to pass at the time of THE GOING DOWN OF THE
SUN...they took off of the trees... And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and
smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king...he...destroyed..."
We have often been misled into thinking that the "going down of the sun"
ALWAYS means "sunset," because some Hebrew and Chaldee words that DO mean
"sunset" have been translated "going down of the sun." But in all the above
cited cases it is a different Hebrew word, and it means "noon." In the
Hebrew lexicon of Strong's Concordance under word #6153, "evening," we find: 
	"The Pharisees...and the Rabinists considered the time WHEN THE SUN BEGAN
TO DESCEND to be called first EVENING...and the second evening to be the
real sunset..." 
From this we can clearly see that the word "evening" can and is used to
indicate both high noon and also sunset.
Definition Conclusions: We now come to the point where we can capsulize our
definitions.
   DAY: A 24 hour period of time; also, sunrise to sunset.
        1). A 24 hour period of time starting at 12 o'clock noon and ending
at 12 o'clock noon the following day.
        2). The daylight portion of a 24 hour period of time starting at
sunrise and ending at sunset.
   NIGHT: Sunset to sunrise. The dark portion of a 24 hour period of time
starting at sunset and ending at sunrise.
   EVENING: 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight. The ever constant 12 hour period
of time that starts at 12 o'clock noon (the beginning of the Biblical day)
                 and ends at 12 o'clock midnight.
   MORNING: 12:00 midnight to 12:00 noon. The ever constant 12 hour period
of time that starts at 12 o'clock midnight and ends at 12 o'clock noon (the
              end of the Biblical day).
   EVEN: 12:00 noon. The point in time of a 24 hour day when the daylight
portion of that day is divided into two equal or even parts: thus the term
                 "even." This equal division  always occurs at 12:00 noon
at any place throughout the world.
   THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN: At even; 12 o'clock noon. The point in time
when the sun reaches its apex, its highest point; immediately after which
it then starts its decline or when it starts going down.
Warnings for Christians against the Doctrine of men and Jewish Fables: It
is a good thing that Christ, Paul and the other apostles warned us about
wolves in sheep's clothing and FALSE TEACHERS that would come into our
midst and even spring up from our own church bodies to lead people away
from the truth. There is a group of people today who follow the doctrine of
teachings of men; people who practice the teachings of ancient Phariseeism,
the Phariseeism that Christ accused the Scribes and Pharisees of his day of
practicing:
	"...[Jesus] answered and said unto [the Scribes and Pharisees], why do ye
also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?...Ye made the
commandment of God of none effect by your tradition...in vain they do
worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 
This modern day PHARISEEISM is called "talmudism" because these people use
the TALMUD: the writings of those whom they call "the learned elders of
Zion," as their bible. The Talmud is the foundation of their Babylonian
religion. These writings called the Talmud are bound in approximately 63
volumes. In the book, The Pharisees, written by Louis Finkelstein, the
Provost and Solomon Schecter Professor of Theology at the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, wrote in the Forward to his first edition
on page xxi:
	"Phariseeism became Talmudism, then became Medieval Rabbinism, and
Medieval Rabbinism became modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of
name...the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the
Jew... studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in
the Palestinian academies."
These modern day Pharisees, who follow the teachings of Talmudism, say that
they are "God's Chosen People." They call their religion "Judaism" and call
themselves "Jews" (Judahites), but they do lie and are of the "synagogue of
Satan" as Christ told John in the Book of Revelation:
	"...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judahites], and
are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." ; "Behold, I will make them of
the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [Judahites], and are not,
but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet,
and to know that I have loved thee." 
These people who call themselves "God's Chosen People," but do lie, begin
their day at sundown and have deceived millions and millions of people in
Christendom to follow their traditions and "commandments of men." Christ
warned us about these people when He told us:
	"...beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." 
Christ also said of these people:
	"...ye are of your father the devil...he...abode not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him." 
The Apostle Paul warned us in Titus 1:14 not to give,
	"...heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."
Again Christ warned us:
	"...they shall deceive the very elect." 
Starting the weekly Sabbath at sundown is following a "Jewish fable," a
tradition of Judaism, which is taught in the Talmud, the bible of Judaism.
This Jewish fable has deceived millions of people and has led them away
from the truth of God's true Sabbath.
Confusion: 
	"...God is not the author of confusion..." 
To say that the day begins at sundown is confusion. Consider the fact that
no other day of the week starts at sundown. Consider also that sundown
changes daily at any given location on earth. On some days of the year the
sun rises very early and sets very late, making the daylight hour as long
as 16 to 23 hours. At other times of the year, the sun rises very late and
sets very early, making the daylight hours as short as one to eight hours.
The time of sunset is always changing. Not only is sunset changing daily
but sunset can be at a different time of the same day between communities
as close as five to ten miles apart, particularly in mountainous regions;
thereby causing neighbors to start their days at different times; this is
certainly confusion. Attempts have been made to hide this confusion by
picking a time, such as 6 p.m. as the time to start the Sabbath, knowing
full well that time is not really sundown. This is just another one of
those commandments of men; the commandment of God is still being ignored.
In Revelation 18:4 we are told to come out of Babylon (which means
"confusion"). When we use sunset (which is constantly changing) to
determine when our day is to begin, we find ourselves in confusion
(Babylon). Isn't it wonderful that God gave us a time of day that never
changes which can be determined by everyone, even the uneducated? Yes, high
noon is always the same, because God gave us the sun to determine when our
day is to begin . A Look at Scripture: Now let us take a look at some
Scriptural commands in regards to observing certain days, commands given to
us from God Himself. 
In Deuteronomy 16:1-8 we are told when to kill the passover, how to cook it
and when to return home:
	"...thou shalt sacrifice the passover at EVEN, AT THE GOING DOWN OF THE
SUN...thou shalt roast it...and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto
thy tents."
In Exodus 12:1-51 we have the detailed account of the first passover and
its detailed instructions:
	"...take...a lamb...without blemish, a male of the first year...from the
sheep, or from the goats...Israel shall kill it IN THE EVENING [Strong's
#6153, this is the same word translated 'even in Deuteronomy 16:6 above]...
they shall eat the flesh in the night, roast with fire...eat not of it raw,
nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs,
and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain
until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye
shall burn with fire...in one house shall it be eaten: thou shalt no carry
forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a
bone thereof."
Exodus 34:25 tells us:
	"...neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of passover be left until the
morning."
We are also told in Exodus 12:29 that,
	"...it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in
the land."
In the above passages we can see that a fair amount of time will have
elapsed from the time of killing the passover at "even," at the going down
of the sun, (12 Noon) and the burning of the leftovers, which must be
completed before midnight. Why must the left-overs be burned before
midnight? Because God had commanded them to return to their tents "in the
morning" (which commences at midnight. . 
Midnight is the time when the Lord smote all the firstborn of Egypt.
Israelites were to be in their houses with the blood of the lamb smeared on
the doorposts and lintel.
Let's take a look at what must be done and the approximate length of time
it would take to do it.
   1). They must kill, skin and clean the lamb. (Estimate: one hour).
   2). They must roast it until it is completely done, not raw. Today if
you roast a turkey that weighs 20 to 25 pounds in a modern oven, it will
take                    between six to eight hours to roast. We have no
idea how much longer it took in their ovens or fire pits. (Estimate: 6-8
hours).     
   3). They are not to eat it. (Estimate: 1/2-1 hour).
   4). They are now to burn with fire everything that is left over.
(Estimate: 1/2-1 hour). Total elapsed time: 8-11 hours. After looking at
the things that are         required to observe the passover, it becomes
quite clear that it could not have been accomplished if it had been begun
at sundown.
The day before the Day of Atonement: In Leviticus 23:32 we are commanded:
	"It shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls:
in the ninth day of the month AT EVEN, FROM EVEN UNTO EVEN, shall ye
celebrate your Sabbath."
In this passage, all three of the words that were translated as "even" are
Strong's #6153, the same as in Deut. 16:6, and means "noon."
At the time of Nehemiah: A few Israelites of old were carried off to
Babylonian captivity, and after 70 years God allowed about 50,000 of those
who wanted to, to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls and the city.
After the walls were rebuilt, the Israelites started to profane the Sabbath
as their fathers had done before them. This was the main reason for their
captivity in the first place. The prophet Nehemiah became very angry when
he learned what the Israelites had been doing in his absence and he
upbraided them severely, as recorded in Nehemiah 13:15-22. In verse 19, we
learn that:
	"...it came to pass that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark
[shaded] before [at the front of] the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates
should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the
Sabbath."
In this passage the word that is translated "dark" is Strong's #6751. it is
used only twice in scripture, and it means "to shade." The main gate in
Jerusalem faces east, and just after the sun reached the apex (noon), a
shadow was cast on the main gate. It was at that time that Nehemiah ordered
that the gates were to be shut to commence the Sabbath. 
Saul is King of Israel: During King Saul's reign over Israel, he became
jealous of David and sought ways to kill him. Saul's son, Jonathan, was
David's faithful friend who warned him of Saul's plans to kill David. In 1
Samuel 20:5 we learn;
	"...David said unto Jonathan...let me go, that I may hide myself in the
field unto the third day at EVEN." 
Later on in 1 Samuel 20:35, we find that Jonathan went out IN THE MORNING
and met David at the TIME APPOINTED, which was at noon, or "even."
	"...it came to pass in THE MORNING, that Jonathan went out into the field
at THE TIME APPOINTED with David..."
In the first passages we see that David appointed a time to meet, which the
Bible calls "EVEN," on the third day. In the second passage we see that
they met at the "APPOINTED TIME" which was "even." When we look closely, we
see that Jonathan went out into the field in the "MORNING." That means he
went out sometime between "midnight" and "noon," and met him at the
APPOINTED TIME, which it now becomes obvious was noon or shortly thereafter.
Morning: In the gospel of Mark, chapter one, verse 35, we read that Christ
got up "a great while" BEFORE DAYLIGHT to pray, but it was already
"morning" when he got up:
	"...IN THE MORNING, rising up a great while BEFORE DAY, he went out, and
departed into a solitary place, and there prayed."
Translators Inconsistent: The above example clearly illustrate that there
are times, as recorded in Scripture, when the words "even," "evening" and
"the going down of the sun" mean 12 noon. There are many other times when
this is the case. There are also numerous times that the same words (even,
evening, going down of the sun) do NOT mean 12 noon. Therefore, we must
always, as we have stated before, check the context of each passage where
those words occur. We must not blindly assume that if it means "noon" in
one verse that it always means "noon," or if it means "sunset," in a
particular verse, that it always means "sunset." I repeat: ALWAYS CHECK THE
CONTEXT.
Secular History Findings: We found it quite interesting to learn that the
secular world also started and ended the day at 12 o'clock noon. In the
third edition of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia we find (pp.
1691-1692) under the heading "Time," the following:
	"From the earliest recorded history the...sun has been adopted as the
clock for regulating human affairs, and the apparent [visible to the eye;
obvious] solar day is the interval of time between successive passages of
the true sun across a local meridian. For many centuries upper culmination,
or apparent noon, marked the beginning of an apparent day and local
apparent time was the HOUR ANGEL of the true sun. In 1925, to bring the
apparent day into synchronism with that used in civil life, the beginning
of the apparent day was transferred to lower culmination, or midnight, and
the local apparent time defined as the hour angle of the true sun plus 12
hours...Prior to 1925 the mean solar day began at upper culmination (mean
noon) and the civil day began at midnight."
In the New English Dictionary under the word "day," we are told:
	"The solar day is the fundamental unity of time...being determined by
observations of the sun [day], is taken to begin with the passage of the
mean sun over the meridian...at high noon...while the civil day begins at
midnight."
In the United States Department of Agriculture book "A Walk Through Time,"
we find:
	"During Saxon times, simple sundial forms place above the doorways were
used to identify MIDDAY..."
This way the early Saxons - our Israelite ancestors, knew when to stat
their day. According to the archaeologists, the Umbri of Italy are the
direct descendants of the Israelites of Scripture. We found in the
"Encyclopedia of English Law," under the title "day," the following:
	"...the Umbri in Italy began [the day] at midday...the Egyptians and
Romans at midnight..."     
In the United States Constitution one will find under Article XX:
	"Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at
NOON on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and
Representatives at NOON on the 3rd of January..."
	"Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and
such meetings shall begin at NOON..."
Conclusion - Part I: After a thorough search of the Holy Scriptures and
then checking secular history to see what actually took place, we have come
to the conclusion that the "weekly Sabbath" of Scripture starts at 12
o'clock noon at the end of the sixth day and continues until 12 o'clock
noon at the end of the seventh day. 
This changing of times is nothing but fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel
7:25:
	"...he [the fourth beast] shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and
think to change times and laws..."
Part II: The Weekly Sabbath - Which Day of the Week?
	"...it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice
of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments which I
command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above
all nations of the earth: and all these blessings shall come on thee, and
overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy
god...the Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath
sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God,
and walk in his ways. And all the people of the earth shall see that thou
art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee." 
It is the purpose of Part II of this study to determine on which day of the
week the Sabbath begins. Since Scripture does not tell us directly which
day is the Sabbath we must look to prophecy and its fulfillment to
determine the specific day that is the Sabbath day.
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." 
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." ; "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." 
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 
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.  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. 
	"...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. 
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." 
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. 
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 . 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 . 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."  
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." 
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.'"  Occupy is a legal term meaning,
"To hold in possession."  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."  "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 
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." 
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." 
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 . 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 '...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
Constitution 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." 
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?
	Chapter Five
	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." 
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. Socialist/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 TEACHINGS 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.  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.
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"  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."  
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." ;
"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." ;
"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." 
	     "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." .
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." 
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." 
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." 
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..." 
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." 
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 , 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 . 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
socialist-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." 
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  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." ; "Any direct
or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, the establishment
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." ; "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." 
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." ; "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.'" 
IS THE PURPOSE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM? 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." ; "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." 
	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 INSURANCE,
and as to legislation and matters of administrative policy concerning
OLD-AGE PENSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, ACCIDENT COMPENSATION, and
related subjects." 
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  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." 
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..." 
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.
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 Socialist 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." 
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 , 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 ORGANIZATIONS 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." 
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." 
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.  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." 
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..." 
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." 
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 VIOLATIONS 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 : 
	"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." 
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 ; 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.
	Chapter Six
	IMPOSITION OF SLAVERY
In the Midrash Rabbah, a rabbinical commentary, there is a prediction one
day all gentiles will be slaves of Jews.  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.  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.  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.
 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." 
And:
	"The practice developed and tolerated in the kidnapping of Whites laid the
foundation for the kidnapping of Negroes." 
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." 
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
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." 
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.  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..."  
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..." 
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. 
	"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." 
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." 
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')." 
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..." 
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." 
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." 
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." 
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." 
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." 
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..." 
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." 
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..." 
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." 
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." 
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.   
	"...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."  
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..." 
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.   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.       
	"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..." 
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.
Irish religious leaders were herded into, 
	"internment camps throughout Ireland, and were then moved progressively to
the ports for shipment overseas like cattle."  
By the time Cromwell's men had finished with the Irish people, only
one-sixth of the Irish population remained on their lands.  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.  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." ; "BY FAR THE LARGEST NUMBER and certainly the most
important group OF WHITE INDENTURED SERVANTS (Slaves) WERE THE POOR
PROTESTANTS FROM EUROPE." 
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." 
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.  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." 
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." 
By 1655, half of the total White population of Barbados consisted of
political prisoners sold into slavery.  
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." ; "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."  
This was no "temporary bondage." Of 1300 Cavaliers enslaved in 1652 in
Barbados almost all of them died in slavery.  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.  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..." 
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." 
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.  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.   
	"...their only 'crime' was that they were poor and happened to be found
loitering or sleeping in the streets when the constable passed by." 
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  ...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." 
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." 
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..."  "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." 
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." 
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.
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." 
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.  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." 
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." ; "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."       
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."   
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." ; "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." ; "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." 
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..." ; "...the transportation...became a
profitable enterprise. Traders delivered thousands of bound laborers to
Pennsylvania and exhibited a callous disregard for their...cargoes."  
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."  
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." 
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..." ; "...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..." ; "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."  
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." 
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..." 
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." 
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."  
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."  "Thou are of vylayn blood on thy father's side." 
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..."  
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."  
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." 
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.
The permanent enslavement of racial aliens and their children was permitted.  
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.  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.  
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.  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.  "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." 
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."  
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."  
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."  
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."  
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.
Four-fifths of the White slaves sent to the West Indies didn't survive the
first year. 
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." ; "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." 
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." 
"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!   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..." 
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." ; "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..." ; "(White) servants were
tortured for confessions (fire was inserted between their fingers and
knotted ropes were put about their necks)..."  
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..." 
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." 
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. 
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." 
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." 
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..." 
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." 
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." 
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.  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."   
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.  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.  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."  
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."  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." 
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.  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."  
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." 
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." 
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 rials
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.  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." ; "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." 
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 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.'"  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." 
In 1654 Henry Whistler called the White slaves of Barbados "rubbish, rogues
and whores."  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.'" 
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.  
	"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..."  
	Chapter Seven
	NORTH AMERICA 
	WAS INHABITED BY ISRAELITES
	1000 YEARS OR MORE BEFORE 1492
When embarking upon a study such as this, one will find that there are
archeological discoveries that have been made which show a strong
correlation to the Bible. For when people think of Israel in the Bible they
assume that all the events which happened to Israel did so in the little
country known as Palestine; today it is called Israel. And therefore the
Israelites could not have been very important in the ancient world.
However, Daniel told us that knowledge would increase in the latter days: 
	"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the
time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be
increased."  
Also, Daniel tells us that many things will be kept secret until the latter
days: 
	"And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed
till the time of the end." 
Many of these recent archeological discoveries combined with secular and
Biblical history give us a shockingly different perspective of the ancient
world in general and ancient Israel in particular. In this chapter we will
attempt to show you evidence which will prove ancient Israel was an empire.
It had a homeland in Palestine, and a far-flung empire much the same as
Britain did until just a few decades ago. Britain once ruled over a
far-flung empire from a small homeland, located in the British Isles.
In the years from about 1050-850 B.C. Israel was the dominant power of the
world with an empire that rivaled and perhaps exceeded that of the Caesars.
The empire included areas of the world now inhabited by the Israelite
people and that included portions of North America. We full well understand
this is a bold statement, but the evidence will follow. In this study we
will examine the real extent of Israel's power and empire in the ancient
world; the Israelite presence in North America with considerable specifics. 
The time of Israel's greatness really began with King David and its rise to
empire status. This happened in about the year 1050 B.C. 2 Samuel 8
discusses David's defeat of the Philistines, Moab, Amalek, Edom, and the
Syrians for example lost more than 80,000 men in just three battles . That
is more men than the United States lost in the 14 years of the Vietnam War.
To give you a perspective of the ferocity of the battles. 
1 Chronicles 21 shows that David could mobilize over 1� 
million men. With an army of that size you are not insignificant, not even
in this age, this day and time. In 1 Chronicles 18:3 it states the border
of his dominion went to the Euphrates River which bordered the area of
Assyria and Babylon; or Mesopotamia who viewed David as an upstart rival. 
The Phoenicians were the city states of Tyre and Sidon, and had a far flung
empire on land and sea. They were the best sailors in the ancient world at
that time, and they saw the rise of David and Israel and made an alliance
with them. They were a common race of Semitic people; they also had a
common language. There were only dialectic differences between Hebrew and
the Phoenician tongue. 1 Kings 17:9-16 relates where Elijah met with a
Phoenician or Zidonan widow, and they had immediate discourse, with no
difficulty at all in communication. 
King Hiram the king of Tyre made David a palace and they became very close
allies as 1 King 5:1 shows. The Israelite Phoenician alliance was an
ancient super power, with all twelve tribes of Israel united they sat
astride the area where three continents met; they had the world's greatest
navy in the Phoenicians combined with David's one and one-half million man
army. And David was not the least bit reluctant to use it. They were
challenged by Assyria and Mesopotamia, which is almost totally unknown by
most and yet it is related in the Bible. There was a revolt in Amon which
is a pretext for war between many nations and the Israelites. 
It is discussed in 1 Chronicles 19 and 20 in some detail. There were 32
thousands chariots from Mesopotamia alone  that came to fight David's army
in this battle. There was also an unknown number of men from Mesopotamia
and Syria which included a number of different people which fought with
Ammon against Israel. In verse 9 we can see it was a national effort with a
number of different nations to destroy Israel as it states their kings came
to watch the battle. 
	"And the children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array before
the gate of the city: and the kings that were come were by themselves in
the field."  
So, we can clearly see, this was not just a mercenary effort, this was a
matter of national commitment against Israel. Israel won the first round
and also the second which left them with no one in the area to challenge
them. If you will look at Psalm 83, which was likely written by David at
this time where he lists many nations that come to help the children of
Lot, which also included Ammon to destroy Israel from off the face of the
earth. 
	"Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O
God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have
lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and
consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, and let us cut
them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in
remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are
confederate against thee: The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of
Moab, and the Hagarenes; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with
the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen
the children of Lot. Selah. Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to
Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison: Which perished at Endor: they
became as dung for the earth. Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb:
yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna: Who said, Let us take to
ourselves the houses of God in possession. O my God, make them like a
wheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth a wood, and as
the flame setteth the mountains on fire; So persecute them with thy
tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame;
that they may seek thy name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and troubled
for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that
thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." 
Secular history has recorded that Assyria's Empire went into eclipse or
confusion, some encyclopedias call it, between 1100-900 B.C. Halley's Bible
Handbook comments on it also, and states that ancient Israel was much
stronger than Assyria, Babylon or Egypt. This is the same period as
Israel's golden age under David and Solomon. And is glossed over in almost
all historical texts, if they even cover it at all. 
What happened to Assyria? It was defeated badly in a war against Israel's
army, as we learn from 1 Chronicles and Psalm 83. The texts of ancient
history will not tell you this nor will it give great credibility as the
Bible is the Word of God. Assyria and other nations had provoked Ammon to
start this war, and this will give you a little indication of how large an
area that David ruled. In Psalm 83 he named the nations that became a part
of this war, which included Assyria and in all likelihood became a vassal
state to David. It included the Ishmaelites, which included the Arabian
Peninsula and people we don't know where they lived in the east, so we
really don't know how large an are David actually ruled. But he did rule
from Egypt to somewhere about the middle of the modern nation of Iran.
Ether directly or through vassal states as a result of that war. But Israel
was the dominant super power of the ancient world at this time. 
Is there evidence of an Israelite Empire? The answer is Yes! But the
secular historians will rarely call it an Israelite Empire, they will call
it a Phoenician Empire. Most people who do not realize the difference
between Judah and Israel balk at this major role for Israel because they
think the Jews were the Israelites and the Jews have always been few in
number, but they don't realize that the men from Judah were only a small
part of David's army at this time. It is true that David was of the tribe
of Judah but he, also, had eleven other tribes to provide manpower. 
The Phoenician Empire is credited by historians as being dominant in the
Mediterranean Sea; as being present in substantial numbers in the British
Isles, the West Coast of Europe and Africa in the period of about 1100-800
B.C. and they are not at all bashful in calling it a Phoenician Empire.
This coincides with the exact time that Assyria was put down and the Bible
tells us that David had defeated the Assyrians. 
It coincides with Israel's greatness and the allegiance of the Phoenician
city Israelites; show Phoenicia took pains to join with them because they
did not wish to be their enemy. 1 Chronicles 22 relates that David
accumulated for the Temple of God iron and brass beyond calculation.
Warrner Keller in his book "The Bible is History" states: 
	"Israel was using the Bessemer system of smelting, which was nor
re-discovered until recently in the modern era...Essian Gebar was the
Pittsburgh of ancient Palestine." 
That nowhere else in the fertile crescent which includes Mesopotamia could
such a large smelting facility be found. We see by this that Israel was not
just an agriculture only nation but they were also the industrial power
house of the ancient world. Dr. Berry Fells book "Bronze Age America" cites
evidence that 1/2 billions of copper ore was taken from mines near Lake
Superior in North America, in roughly 2000-1000 B.C. The dates include the
time of David's reign, at the tail end of it, as the ore apparently ran out
for they have no evidence that it was mined after that. 
It could be that the Israelites simply worked the mines to death, or to
where they could not be mined economically at that point. Which Fell states
that this New World copper mine output there is no evidence what became of
it. There is no evidence it was used in this hemisphere at all. And they
have no idea where the copper came from which was smelted in Palestine
during this time. Putting this evidence together and one comes up with the
assumption that this copper was shipped from North America to Palestine by
boat and was used by Israel in its huge smelting facilities in Palestine.
The Phoenician/Israelite presence in America has abundantly shown to be
real. At this point, we must, in all fairness, present just one of the many
stories which abound which make reference to our Israel ancestors coming to
America thousands of years BEFORE Columbus. The following is taken from an
article in National Geographic, Vol. 152, No. 6, December 1977, pp. 769.
	"The New Word: Who, from the Old first touched its shore? Historians held
for centuries that it was Christopher Columbus. By current consensus, it
was Norse voyagers of a thousand years ago. But perhaps it was a group of
shadowy, yet very real, Irish seafaring monks who predated even the Vikings
by more than four centuries. In the great pantheon of New World explorers
no name is more intriguing, or more clouded in controversy, than that of
Ireland's St. Brendan. His legend, today more tantalizing than ever, has
persisted through the centuries in the form of a Christians imram, an Irish
saga: Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis, Voyage of Saint Brendan the Abbot.
With 17 fellow monks, it relates, Brendan sailed to Terra Repromissionis
Sanctorum, THE LAND PROMISED TO THE SAINTS, SOMEWHERE BEYOND THE FAR
REACHES OF THE WESTERN ATLANTIC. Was the Promised Land North America? Did
St. Brendan actually reach it in the sixth century? Neither history nor
archeology offers proof."
This statement is totally untrue, and I believe the publishers of National
Geographic knew it at the time of the publication. Most of us have read
(from reputable history books) of the adventures of Lief Eriksson and his
party in the founding of Vinland circa A.D. 800-1400 in the area of the St.
Lawrence River in the North-eastern United States and Canada. Although they
predated the Columbus voyage by many centuries, were the expeditions of
Lief Eriksson the first discovery of what is now known as the United
States? There were Christians living in America over 100 years before
Columbus arrived in the Caribbean. The official historians of this country
have known this for many, many years. Yet, none of this is discussed as a
national heritage. Why is this?
Those of us who are interested in finding petroglyphs, or ancient symbols
and pictures engraved on stones, have wondered about the meaning of them.
All we could do was wonder and speculate until the science of deciphering
ancient and unknown languages was developed. The science is called
Epigraphics and it has been developed into a rather sophisticated science.
Symbols, for example, mean something, but what?
     Epigraphics. Until a few years ago geologists told us that the
numerous short and repetitive lines inscribed on rocks found in the
Northeastern United                     States and Canada were simply
scratches made from the movement of ice and rocks during the recent
ice-age. Because of Epigraphics, we                        now know that it
was a language and it has been deciphered.
     The Celts. This language is that of the Celts from Ireland, Scotland,
England, France and the Rhineland country of Germany. The language dates
from                  long before Christ and was in use in Ireland and
England at the time of Celtic Druids. It is called Ogam script and has been
found all over                       America, from the West Indies to
Newfoundland and west into Oregon and British Columbia.
We know that Julius Caesar described the vessels that the Celts had built
and used. In Book III of his De Bello Gallico he described these vessels
against which his small, puny (by comparison), ships of the Roman fleet
fought. He described them as being capable of sailing "upon the vast open
sea." This is exactly what they did. It appears that there were many
different expeditions and migrations by the Celts during the period of many
centuries before Christ until circa 400-800 A.D. They came, not only just
once to colonize, but they came and returned to Europe on a repetitive basis.
     The Vikings. The Vikings were here in America when King Woden-lithi
sailed the Atlantic seventeen centuries before Christ and entered the St.
                         Lawrence River. He established a trading post at a
site near where Toronto now stands. It became a religious and commercial
center that is                      now known as Petroglyph Park at
Peterborough, Canada. King Woden-lithi's home was in Norway.
He remained in Canada for five months, from April to September and traded
his woven fabrics for copper ingots obtained from the European settlers. He
called these people Wal, which is a word cognate with Wales and Welsh. He
gave these Celts his religious beliefs, the ability to measure woven cloth
and an astronomical observatory for measuring the Nordic calendar and for
determining the dates of the pagan Yale and Ishtar festivals. Remember,
this was seventeen centuries (1700-years) before Christ!
     Ogam Script. The Celts were already here when King Woden-lithi
arrived. What was their written language like? We have already shown that
they                         wrote with the Ogam script which can be
described simply as an alphabet, comprising fifteen consonants and five
vowels, together with a few                     other signs representing
double letters such as diphthongs. The letters are made by inscribing
single parallel strokes placed in sets of one to                      five,
in position above, across, or below a guide line.
     The Languages. But what words were made from this Ogam alphabet? Here
again the science of Epigraphics gives us the answer. We know that there
                   is no language of any of the American Indians that is
made up of the Greek language. 
And yet the ancient Celts in the area of the St. Lawrence River spoke a
language that was directly derived from the Greek! As we shall see, the
different Celts in America spoke yet other languages! The type of Greek
that was spoken by the Celts of the area is known as Ptolemaic which means
that it is a dialect of Greek that was spoken in Egypt, Palestine and the
other countries in the area that Alexander conquered. Alexander forced upon
the area his idea of one-world government, one-world people, one-world
religion and one-world language. It was this Ptolemaic dialect that
Alexander forced upon the citizens of the area. The dialect was composed of
Greek, Egyptian and Aramaic. This is why Jesus spoke Aramaic and Greek,
instead of Hebrew. We will study the effect that Alexander had on Israel
and Christianity in a future lesson.
The obvious question from the previous paragraph is, who were the Celts?
Did the Celts from Iberia (THE SPANISH PENINSULA) and the Rhineland go to
Egypt and Palestine and learn the Greek spoken language at the time of
Alexander or did the Israelites (NOT JEWS) learn the Greek and Aramaic when
they were in Palestine and then go to the new world to escape the
dictatorship of Alexander? Remember, Israel lost the knowledge of ancient
Hebrew (not modern Yiddish) before and during the time of Alexander.
The language of the Celts who were already here in the St. Lawrence River
Valley when King Woden-lithe arrived has since been lost. Why has the
language disappeared? This is probably at least partly because through the
subsequent years they intermixed with other peoples and in the process the
language was lost. It doesn't take much to lose a language. Notice the
difference between American English and the English language spoken in
England. But that doesn't account for the fact that a grace of people
totally vanished from the continent. Some of the Ogam Script is with the
Gaelic influence. 
The Gaelic language came from the highlands of Scotland. In the New England
area, artifacts such as grave headstones have been found, all with Ogam
script in Gaelic script.  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 Mariners from Tarshish. Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the
multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they
traded in                                    thy fairs . The Celts were
well established in foreign trade. 
In 1780, Ezra Stiles, who later became the president of Yale College, found
and recorded a Tartessian inscription on a rock along the seashore near
Mount Hope Bay, Rhode Island. The deeply cut inscription clearly shows the
outline of a typical high-sterned ship from Tarshish. Under the outline of
the ship are the words in Tartessian (Tarshish) Punic, "Mariners of
Tarshish this rock proclaims." 
Near Union, New Hampshire, another Tartessian inscription was found with a
similar Tarshish ship hull and the words, "VOYAGERS FROM TARSHISH THIS
STONE PROCLAIMS."
On Mohegan Island, off the coast of Maine, is, in Ogam script in Gaelic
dialect, an inscription showing that the Celts traded with the traders from
Tarshish. It is obvious that the mariners from Tarshish were not residents
of the area as were the Celts. They were trading with the Celts for their
furs and raw materials from the mining done by the Celts. Thus, there was a
lively trade being conducted between the Japhetic sons of Tarshish  and the
Celtic sons of Shem. Some of the trading was done with goods in exchange
for the furs and metals of the Celts. But there was also an exchange for
coins. It seems that modern historians won't believe the facts of history
such as the Ogam inscriptions. They only like to see the money! Well, there
is that, too!
     Coins. From about the fourth century B.C. the ancient mariner traders
brought coins in addition to goods. In the year 1787, Pastor Thaddeus
Madson               Harris came upon a group of men working on a road
known as the Cambridge-Malden road (now Route 16) in Massachusetts. 
The workers had uncovered a flat stone underneath the surface. Under the
stone was a cache of ancient coins, nearly two quarts of them. The coins
were square pieces made of a copper-silver alloy. Each coin was stamped on
both sides with an unknown script. Pastor Harris recorded the incident in a
letter to John Quincy Adams. The inscriptions were taken to the Harvard
Library for translation but with no success. The letter was then buried in
the archives for nearly two hundred years until James Whittall, of the
Early Sites Research Society, re-discovered the letter with the
inscriptions and researched them with the American Numismatic Society and
with Epigraphic scientists. The inscriptions proved to be that of Kufic
origin which is a form of Arabic. Undoubtedly, one of the trading mariners
brought the coins to America to purchase the Celtic goods which were for
sale. 
After the newly designed steel plow was invented by Charles Newbold in
1797, the earth could be turned over to a much greater depth. The furrow
that the plow made opened up the soil and there, by the thousands, were
found Roman coins! In days of early America, the extensive study of Latin
and Roman history was required for a college degree. Thus, the people of
America readily knew that Europeans came to America and lived in America
much earlier than Christopher Columbus. But later, from American history
books, our school children were taught the Columbus mystique and they were
taught that the world was considered flat by all educated people until
Columbus discovered America! All of those Roman coins that were discovered
were ignored and it has remained that way until very recently. As we
continue our studies, we will realize why the truth was buried.
In 1961, Frederick J. Pohl raised the nagging question of the Roman coins
in his book Atlantic Crossings Before Columbus. He describes notable finds
of Roman coins in the United States. Other scientists have carried on the
task of proving the European travels to this continent long before
Columbus. One of the notable men in this field is Professor Cyclone covey
of Wake Forest University. Much will be discussed about his investigations
later in this lesson. Roman coins are not the only money found in America.
Carthaginian, Celto-Iberian, Greek, Libyan and Norse coins have been found
in locations all over the United States. 
Near Castle Gardens, Wyoming a petroglyph was found, written in
Celto-Gaelic, describing the location of what would be the description of a
bank. Yes, the petroglyph says that this was the first money-changing
location to reach the area and that the bank operated with no usury!
Undoubtedly, this was a location for exchanging the value of one coin for
another for the purpose of trading and traveling. The petroglyph written in
Celto-Gaelic undoubtedly means that the Celts were located in Wyoming and
the fact that they operated in Wyoming and the fact that they operated with
no usury is significant. We will shortly discuss the type of law the Celts
exercised.
From 400 B.C. to 1100 A.D., the Western world realized six maritime powers.
They all came out of the Mediterranean area except for the last one. They
are, in order of their appearance, (1) the Carthaginians of Tunisia; (2)
the Greeks and Libyans of North Africa; (3) the Romans; (4) the Byzantine
Greeks who succeeded Rome; (5) the Islamic powers of North Africa and Asia;
and (6) the Norse sea-rovers.
Although the Celts were never realized as a maritime power, since they were
a people scattered over many countries, their ocean-going ships were among
the best. These ships were huge in comparison to the Roman ships. They were
two thousand tons in capacity as compared to about four hundred tons of the
average Roman ship. 
The ships that the uncle of Jesus, Joseph of Aramathea, used to haul lead
and tin from the Glastonbury area of England for sale to the Romans were
Celtic in design and operation. Again, Julius Caesar spoke very highly of
the sea-going prowess of the Celts and their ships. Throughout this period,
each of these maritime powers sent ships all over the high seas and to
America. 
But it was the Libyans who transcended all of the others in the span of
their voyage. A Libyan, named Eratosthenes of Cyrene, accurately calculated
the earth's circumference. He reasoned that the earth's oceans had to be
continuous and consequently a ship could sail around the world in either
direction and return to the starting point. The date was approximately 239
B.C.!
Eratosthenes developed the system of the meridian circles of the map of the
globe. The meridian circles are simply the points on the globe where the
USN is directly overhead at noon at the local time. He set these meridian
circles in a grid in such a way that a mariner could accurately locate his
position. He drew the primary meridian circle to pass through Alexandria. 
The Libyans then set sail in their ocean-going vessels to prove that
Eratosthenes was right. Their ships were equipped with magnetic compasses.
Their compass consisted of a ceramic bowl with the compass points engraved
around the edge. A lodestone (a strongly magnetic variety of the mineral
magnetie) was floated on the water in the bowl. 
Sometimes, a magnetized iron strip was suspended in the bowl. They also had
a device for navigation that was the forerunner of the modern sextant. The
Libyans traveled eastward, through the Suez Canal that King Darius had
built, then sailed down the Red Sea, and then around the tip of India,
through the Indonesian straits and then into the Pacific Ocean. 
They arrived on the West Coast of America, disembarked and traveled inland
to Nevada. These ancient Libyans settled in the arid Nevada country because
it was very similar to their own home country. In various locations in
Nevada are petroglyphs, written in Aramaic-Libyan and Celto-Gaelic which
reflect their mariner skills. 
There is a map of North America, showing the outline of both coasts from
the Hudson Bay country of Canada to Panama in the South. It was obviously
taken from one of their meridian circle navigation charts that Eratosthenes
developed. In addition, examples of their mathematics is displayed along
with oceanography. Their alphabet was written in stone for us to see.
Astronomy as a science is displayed. Remember, before the fall of the Roman
Empire, the Center of Western Civilization rested along the shores of the
Mediterranean Sea. 
The modern day epigraphic scientists are puzzled as to what happened to all
of these people, from the Celts, to the Carthaginians, to the Libyans and
all the other original settlers who have come to this land. Certainly
educated people in the sciences and mathematics lived here many years ago,
that is now obvious. But when the American colonists arrived, the natives
had no written language nor any knowledge of higher education.
For example, the Paiute and Shoshone tribesmen of Nevada were asked where
all of the petroglyphs we now know to have been scribed by the Libyans came
from, they could tell the archaeologists and epigraphists nothing except
that neither they nor their forebears had cut them. However, some of the
methods and style of living that were taught by these ancient settlers have
come down through the centuries by the indigenous peoples who were here and
then remained after the mysterious disappearance. 
For example, in the modern, Libyan North African region there are two
Distinct ecological groups.
   1). The first is the modern Berber who is of lighter skin with obvious
and European features with many having blond hair and blue eyes. 
He prefers to live in the mountainous regions where there is more water and
better soil. He is an agriculturist and he builds his home pueblo style out
of sun-dried mud which he calls in Arabic attobi which in America is called
adobe. Their buildings are multi-level with the floors and ceilings
strengthened with wooden beams which project beyond the outer walls. His
dress code calls for the women not to wear the face veil but to tattoo
their chins. The men have the custom to cover their heads and faces with a
scarf-like cloth, showing only their eyes to strangers. Even today, these
modern Berbers still speak the Berber language which came to them from
their Celto-Iberian background.
   2). The second ecological group is the Arabs. They are nomadic, moving
their herds from place to place in the lowlands. They live in tents. The
women cover their heads with veils and are not tattooed. The men do not
veil the face. Their language is Arabic.
In the Peabody Museum of Harvard University are ancient bowls made by these
Libyan mariners who built their temporary colonies in the Southwestern
United States. The bowls very clearly show a man and woman painted on the
sides of each. The women have no veil but have their chins tattooed. The
men have the Berber type of scarf covering their faces with only the eyes
showing! Beyond a doubt, these people were a part of the Libyan expeditions
into the Western United States. They, too, suddenly disappeared in the 10th
to 12th century A.D., after having been here from about 500 B.C. All of
these people abandoned their towns and simply vanished.
The ancient Berbers were of Celto-Iberian origin. They spoke a Gaelic
Celto-Iberian language. When we again return to the Scottish Declaration of
Independence and read that they travelled through Iberia (THE SPANISH
PENINSULA) on their way to Scotland and Ireland, it would account for the
Celto-Iberian-Gaelic dialect. It is in this language that the great
majority of the petroglyphs are written. It is obvious that the Libyan
Berbers associated with the Celts of the Eastern and Northern United States
during the apex of their civilization here. It is apparent that they had a
flourishing trade with their home countries of Europe. Not only did they
travel to and from Europe on occasion in their own ships, they conducted
commerce with the traders from Tarshish and Cartage. 
Just as the Celts in the Glastonbury and Avalon areas of England mined for
tin and lead and shipped the finished metal to Rome in Joseph of
Aremathea's ships, the same Celts conducted mining operations in America
and either sold or traded their metal with Europe. But it all vanished
around the end of the first millennium A.D.
     Christianity and the American Celts. When the first Celts arrived in
America, they were as pagan as their brothers in Europe. Many of the
earlier                                                  inscriptions in
America depicted Baal worship and classical Phallic worship. 
Then, all of sudden, there came the appearance of Christian inscriptions.
In fact, whenever it was possible, the later Christian inscriptions were
inscribed over the top of the earlier pagan writing. This was obvious to
the epigraphic scientists because the later inscriptions were cut deeper
and partially obliterated the earlier work. In Cripple Creek, Colorado
there is a memorial in Greek that states, 
	"Herein is the last resting place of Palladis (a priest), the servant of
God." 
At Oak Island, Nova Scotia is found an inscription in Libyan dialect of the
North African Coptic Church, which states, 
	"To escape contagion of plague and winter hardships, he is to pray for an
end or mitigation, the arif: The people will perish in misery if they
forget the Lord, alas. ."
Wherever Christianity has gone, the Laws of God have been adapted into the
legal system of the community. The Christian Celts of Iberia, Ireland,
Scotland as well as the Christian Celts of America had a legal system that
reflected the teachings of the Christian Bible. The system was called the
Tanistry which means the administration of law by deputies of the king. The
system as it is preserved from ancient times is rather lengthy so here are
just a few examples to show the influence of the Christian Bible:
   1). "In the obscurity of the mists of olden time a desire would arise to
replace armed combat by arbitration. 
   2). And it would seem a desirable thing that land boundaries should be
fixed without recourse to moats. 
   3). Henceforth cases involving wrongdoing are to be made over to the
wisest men. 
   4). Any case is to be brought to judgment without delay.
   5). Henceforth in any case involving false utterances let amends be paid
in compensation for the harm. 
   6). Henceforth if a complainant be merciful, let the judges also be
merciful. 
   7). If a malicious man utter lying words that another declares to be
slanderous, to the measure of his tongue-loose recklessness shall he
transport heavy burdens         for the other man .
   8). The common people may eat corn, together with game bird but they may
not hunt bears. They may kill stags, goats and red deer." 
There is much more to the Tanistry but this gives you information that the
early Celts became Christian and this was imparted to those Celts living in
the United States long before Columbus "discovered" America.
     The Norsemen. The Columbus mystique has been so impressed on the
American people that we are blinded to facts. Such again is the case of the
                          colonists from Norway. When Thormod Torfason
wrote his authenticated works titled Historia Vinlandae Antiquae in 1705,
very few                               historians and other scholars knew
anything of the many trips to America by the Norse mariners and colonists.
For over two more centuries,                     nearly everyone continued
to disbelieve Torfason's studies. 
The American's minds were made up, don't confuse us with facts! We will
understand why we have been misled by the conclusion of the next lesson in
history. On May 24, 1934, a mining prospector named James Edward Dodd was
blasting in the Great Lakes region of Canada and his dynamite uncovered a
sword and a shield. These artifacts were taken to the royal Ontario Museum
and they were accurately dated to the first quarter of the eleventh
century, about 1025 A.D. It was at this time that Leif Eriksson began his
first ventures to the land that he called Vinland. The name itself was
given to the St. Lawrence River area because of the abundance of wild
grapes that the Norsemen found to make a very good grade of wine. Because
of the find of the sword and shield, along with much other evidence, we
Americans began to believe that the Norsemen did, indeed, predate Columbus'
discovery. 
In the 1930's, we began to learn about the tremendous amount of European
travel and commerce predating Eriksson by many centuries. Then in 1940, we
were reconvinced that Eriksson didn't exist and that there was absolutely
nobody who proceeded Columbus. Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison was an author
who appeared to be "puffed" by the establishment. His style of writing was
light and airy and he was very capable of mixing legends in with
archaeological and historical facts in such a way that it became easy to
question the technical analysis. 
In 1940, from his Harvard position, he was adamant in his position that
Columbus was the first and in 1942 he wrote Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A
Life of Christopher Columbus to prove his point. By 1961 the Royal Ontario
Museum was obliged to re-evaluate their analysis of the sword and shield by
stating that it "was not possible to authenticate the story of the alleged
discovery."
In Admiral Morison's book The European Discovery of America, he refutes the
Vinland story by stating that nearly all of the seacoast towns from
Newfoundland to the Virginia Capes boast in their histories that Lief
Eriksson was there. But he says that there have been no artifacts to prove
his presence. He states that the Newport stone tower which is cherished as
the first Christian Church in America is a fake and that it was built
around 1675 by a colonial governor of Rhode Island. Yet, in 1946 an
authenticated inscription was found on one of the rocks of the tower. The
inscription is in Nordic Runes and simply declares the lower to be the
"cathedral church" and the "Bishop's Seat." 
The Newport Tower is a part of the church that the Norsemen built in the
early 1300's. To further authenticate this, the Italian explorer Giovanni
de Verrazano in 1524 sailed up the East coast of the United States from
Florida to labrador. He rediscovered Long Island Sound and the Hudson
River. He drew a map, which is officially shown in the Archives, of the
Narragansett coast and in his writings he described the stone' built
"Norman Villa." He went ashore and found friendly Indians who knew nothing
of the building of the villa. Verrazano recognized it to be Norse because
of the style of architecture and other evidence. An English document (of
the period of the Pilgrims) proposed a settlement in Rhode Island. The
document gave the location of the Norman Tower as the place where the
settlement should be made. 
In Rhode Island today, the local name for the tower is often given as
"Governor Arnold's Mill," because the first governor made use of the tower
as a flour mill. Here is an example of how a historian can take partial
facts, along with legend, and make it fit the "politically correct thing to
say." There is evidence now being discovered that shows the Norsemen to
have sailed South, along the Eastern seashore, into the Gulf of Mexico and
then up the Mississippi River. 
Not only have Viking Battle Axes been found but more inscriptions to prove
their presence. The Heavener runestone inscription in the Oklahoma State
Park on Poteau Mountain has been definitely judged to be Nordic script of
the Viking Age of not later than 1350 A.D. Viking inscriptions have also
been found in Colorado. No longer can we deny the presence of the Norsemen
in America several hundred years before Columbus.
We have left for last what is perhaps the most striking evidence of
pre-Columbus Europeans in America. In the Southwestern part of the United
States the climate is generally arid or semi-arid and the soil is more
alkaline. As a result of these conditions artifacts, including human
remains, are left intact for a very long time.
There is mounting evidence that Europeans, in significant numbers,
colonized a portion of the Southwestern United States during the period
from approximately 700 A.D. until about 1300 A.D. It is very significant
that all of the colonies in North America, including this one under
discussion, appeared to simply vanish within an approximate 100 year time
frame. We may never know the exact reasons and there could have been
several. We know that the Europeans transmitted diseases that were specific
to Europe to the indigenous natives who were vulnerable to them. 
Conversely, the natives gave the Europeans specific diseases to which they
were vulnerable, such as some of the social diseases. Or, there could have
very easily been a universal uprising and this is even probable. Whatever
the reasons were, we must believe that the ventures did not please God.
There had to be things that were done that were seriously breaking some of
His Laws. 
About 700 A.D. there appeared in the area of West Texas, New Mexico,
Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, a literal empire apparently made up of a
city-state system. The empire was Christian and they had succeeding kings.
The people came from the British Isles, Gaul (France), Germany, Rome and
apparently North Africa. Undoubtedly, the North Africans were the Berbers
who had already arrived from Libya and had previously taught the natives to
build the pueblo style structures and to irrigate for farming. Some of the
ancient ruins that were very skillfully built of stone masonry that are
dotted over the Southwest are probably associated with the empire. Some of
these ancient ruins have been rebuilt with later construction over the top
of the original. 
The modern Amerindian knows nothing about the builders of these ancient
cities. However, they have given a name to these earlier inhabitants. They
call them the Hohokam, which means "Those who have gone" or "The old ones."
After the Spaniards occupied Mexico in the early 1500's, they headed north
to investigate the persistent stories of the fabulously wealthy "Seven
Cities of Cibola." Of course they never found them because the empire had
simply vanished a couple of hundred years earlier. Even in 1300 A.D. the
empire had already waned in its importance as a kingdom so there wasn't
much left.
In New Mexico, south of Albuquerque and west of Los Lunas about 14 miles,
is a huge Basalt (volcanic) boulder. The rock is nestled in a small draw on
the side of a group of hills which overlooks the stream called Rio Puerco.
The front side, protruding from the soil, is very flat and provides a
perfect place for an inscription. On this boulder, inscribed in old Hebrew
with a Greek influence, is the Decalog or The Ten Commandments! 
As early as 1850, when New Mexico became a territory, people knew of the
inscription but it was not until a century later when Professor Robert
Pfeiffer of Harvard University, an authority on the Old Testament,
determined it to be The Ten Commandments. The inscription was then
re-authenticated as being The Ten Commandments by Dr. Barry Fell, the
country's foremost epigraphic scientist.
The most revealing discoveries of this ancient kingdom came from the
Tucson, Arizona area. Along the Santa Cruz River, in the vicinity of
Tucson, beneath six or more feet of undisturbed clich� soil, were found
many artifacts that unquestionably prove that European people lived in the
area. Clich� soil is made up of crusted calcium carbonate mixed with
ordinary dirt. Through many years, water mixes with the combination and
turns it into a very hard, concrete like, soil. After it is once formed, if
it is then removed, the soil never returns to the original configuration.
Thus, when the artifacts were found, it is certain that they are of ancient
origin and not a recent fraud. 
The artifacts included lead swords, spears, a patriarchal monstrance or
shrine used in the religious ceremonies, and eight heavy crosses. All of
the artifacts were made of molded lead which was mined in the area. This is
known because some of the molds were also found. Each of the crosses was
actually two thin lead crosses which were riveted together with lead
rivets. When the two halves were separated, it was found that the inner
sides were protected with wax in order to preserve the inscriptions which
were on the inside parts. It became obvious that the crosses were made for
the purpose of a permanent recording of events that were taking place at
the time. The swords were not to be used for combat. They were made of lead
and also contained inscriptions. They were for ceremonies of some sort. 
The inscriptions contained words in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Following are
some of the translations: On one of the crosses, at the top are the words
"In Memoriam." On the cross arm at the left is a profile of a head with the
words "Britain, Albion, Jacob." In the center is another head profile with
the words "Romans, Actim, Theodore." On the right is another head profile
with the words "Gaul, Seine, Israel." On the vertical beam of the lead
cross is this inscription. "Counsels of great cities together with seven
hundred soldiers A.D. 800, Jan. 1." 
	"We are borne over the sea to Calalus, an unknown land where Toltezus
Silvanus ruled far and wide over a people. Theodore transferred his troops
to the foot of the city Rhoda and more than seven hundred were captured. No
gold is taken away. Theodore, a man of great courage, rules for fourteen
years. Jacob rules for six. With the help of God, nothing has to be feared.
In the name of Israel, OL." 
The inscriptions on these artifacts is a sort of history of one of the
city-states of the European migration to this country. The first
inscription reveals that Theodore was the ruling king over the city-state
of Rhoda. The Toltecs (which history shows existed in Mexico in this time
frame) were under Chief Toltezus Silvanus who ruled over a very large area
and people. Theodore was a Roman and he moved his troops to the foot or
outskirts of the city Rhoda for defense against the Toltecs. Apparently the
troops could not hold against the Toltecs and 700 troops were captured but
the Toltecs did not take any gold. Theodore must have been killed in that
battle. The second cross has the following inscription which, of course,
has been translated from the Latin and Greek. 
	"Jacob renews the city. With God's help Jacob rules with mighty hand in
the manner of his ancestors. Sing to the Lord. May his fame live forever.
OL." 
Jacob a native of Britain and he succeeded Theodore for six years while
counterattacking the enemy. He personally fought at the font lines and it
appears that he died in battle. The third cross yielded this inscription. 
	"From the egg (the beginning) A.D. 700 to A.D. 900. Nothing but the cross.
While the war was raging, Israel died. Pray for the soul of Israel. May the
earth lie light on thee. He adds glory to ancestral glory. Israel, defender
of the faith. Israel reigns sixty-seven years." 
Israel I was born on the Seine River in France and must have been just a
boy when he assumed the throne in 785. These dates are known because of
other inscriptions but there are too many of them to include here. The year
790 under Israel I's reign was important because of his decisive victory
over the Toltecs. He subjugated them to be under his rule. On January 1,
800 he presided over a council of allied city-states. Because of the
present peace, he turned his attention tot he priesthood.
The next inscription. 
	"Israel II rules for six. Israel III was twenty-six years old when he
began to rule. Internecine war. To conquer or die. He flourishes in
ancestral honor day by day."
The next inscription. 
	"A.D. 880. Israel III, for liberating the Toltezus, was banished. He was
first to break the custom. The earth shook. Fear overwhelmed the hearts of
men in the third year after he had fled. They betook themselves into the
city and kept themselves within their walls. A dead man thou shall neither
bury nor burn in the city. Before the city a plain was extending. Hills
rung the city. It is a hundred years since Jacob was king. Jacob stationed
himself in the front line. He anticipated everything. He fought much
himself. Often smote the enemy. Israel turned his attention to the
appointment of priests. We have life, a people widely ruling. OL."
The next inscription. 
	"A.D. 895. An unknown land. Would that I might accomplish my task to serve
the king. It is uncertain how long life will continue. There are many
things which can be said while the war rages. Three thousand were killed.
The leader with his principal men are captured. Nothing but peace was
sought. God ordains all things. OL."
The author of the book Calalus is a history professor at Wake Forest
University. He mistakenly describes the people of Rhoda as Roman Jews. This
is undoubtedly because of the names of the individuals. But again, Dr.
Berry Fell, the nation's foremost expert epigraphist SHOWS THEM TO BE
CHRISTIANS FROM ENGLAND, FRANCE, ROME AND NORTH AFRICA. The crosses would
have been unacceptable if they were Jews. The use of the chronological term
A.D., which was started by Dionesius in 532 A.D., would certainly have been
unacceptable to the Jews. To this day they term the present chronological
time the "Christian Era" instead of A.D. The Toltecs went on to totally
destroy these people. Why didn't these European Christians survive? Why did
all of the other Europeans mysteriously vanish with the last of them having
been gone since the 1300's? 
It was for several reasons, all of which are distasteful to God for His
Celto-Saxon people. The Apostle Paul summed it all up when he said: 
	"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 
For one thing, they had to interbreed themselves out of existence, at least
in part. They also apparently came for the riches of gold and silver. In
nearly all cases, there appears to be mining as a principle purpose for
being here. They also apparently tried to subdue the native population. In
other words, use them as slave or cheap labor. If we will look back into
history, all of the great civilizations of the Celto-Saxons fell when they
brought in cheap labor or slaves and then mixed with them. The process
destroys both cultures. If we will but look at our own history we will see
a lesson. That part of our culture that came from the Pilgrims and then
moved westward as the needs required used their own labor. They had large
families and the children worked in their enterprises, be it farming or a
shop in town. They remained separated from other peoples and th