Part XIX

I strongly urge you to once again read Part III before reading this section of The Series. I hereby include by reference, as though fully set forth herein, Part III as the introduction to Part XIX. David

Thomas Paine

They........ contemplate government as a private monopoly and the people as hereditary property."

"Two Different and Distinct Nations

"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of a constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."

Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.

Of course, as we have learned, this was a foregone conclusion long before 1901, and was the deliberate, intended result which was decided upon by the very wording of the Constitution as it was approved in it’s final form by the King of England and his bankers. But then, this is/was simply another step in the ages old war which so few are aware of but which is a constant and has been a constant upon this earth since before Adam/Man was first given the breath of life by the Creator.

"For we have to struggle, not with flesh and blood but with the angelic Rulers, the angelic Authorities, the potentates of the dark present, the spirit-forces of evil in the heavenly sphere. So take God’s armour, that you may be able to make a stand upon the evil day and hold your ground by overcoming all the foe".

Ephesians Chapter 6:12, 13. The Bible, James Moffatt Translation


?Why are we here, and what is the purpose of our existence? I do not have all of these answers, and I suspect that no man can have them, as they are solely the prerogative of the Creator of the Universe. However, there are a number of things which are of paramount importance in understanding our relationship with, and for, the Creator. That is the purpose of this Part of the Series, to show a portion of that relationship, and begin to understand, perhaps, the meaning of life. But, to understand the meaning of life, we first must understand that it is to Him that we owe our very existence now, and into the future. We exist at His Pleasure, and for His Purposes, solely.

?It was because of this that the first Parts of the Series must be written. To begin to understand, you must first get rid of the false "beliefs" within your own minds. You must first begin to see the actual world around you and begin to appreciate your amplified existence "within" that world. You must first begin to understand His Law and how it operates as a Sovereign Power in The Law’s own Right. His Law is not enforced; it enforces itself. Quite a difference between His Law and man’s "law" where armed might decides whose law operates the tax system. This reveals to you Who has the actual Right to make Law, and the lie of man made law.

?And to be honest with you, this Part is an adjustment paper "within" the Series itself. If not for you, then it has been for me. I had decided upon, and nearly finished, Part XIX before my computer problem arose. Given another two or three days, Part XIX would have been out to everyone. Instead, nothing of the more than 90 pages of Part XIX existed. And this paper is far, far different from what that one was, or would have been. And it has been very difficult to write. And the difficulty was because of the adjustments that I was making, and decisions I was faced with in evaluating new information.

?I mention this for one reason; you are in the same position. I am now in contact with far more people than I have been in the past, and because of the Posting I do with information, in return I am blessed (?) with a flood of information. Not all of this information is correct, or even sensible, but there is a percentage of it that demands attention. It has been a few pieces of this information that has caused my problem with this Part of The Series. And you have the same problem, with massive doses of information, and you are just as vulnerable as I am.

?Once you start to realize how completely we have been lied too, you begin to search for new information to describe and explain what actually exists. This means you are open to new ideas, and this is good, provided you do the work necessary to verify what you are told. It took me a long time to work through the information that was going to end this Part XIX, and most of it was discarded, because I did the work necessary to understand and learn. So must you, or you will turn from His Path and take the road to nowhere. This includes what I tell you. You are responsible; not I. I have my own responsibilities, and must face them, but I can not be responsible for you. This is the first lesson that we must each face and accept. It is, in a way, also the single most difficult lesson of life that we face, accepting personal responsibility.

A Review…

?A small part of this is a review, perhaps, but I think it is necessary.

?What is the earth? Is it just a ball of rock floating in space? Or is there more to the story than this? Earlier in the Series, we discussed a "live" earth; that the center of the earth is a molten dynamo with currents within it which generate electricity, and that without this dynamo, life could not exist upon this "ball of rock." This electricity generation is the very basis of our lives. All operations of our bodies, and the bodies of all living things upon the earth, require this electricity for life. Without this internal dynamo, we can not and would not exist here. The same is true for any other "planet" which may or may not exist in the Universe. Are there others? I know that if there are, it is because the Creator wished there to be, because without intelligent design and intent, such a planet can not exist.

?But there is more to this story than the simple explanation of "a live planet." For within this fact of life is also revealed, if you understand enough, our relationship with the Creator, and our relationship with all other life on this planet. We are, basically, electrical beings. All thoughts and the total operation of our body is done through electricity (some of this "electricity" comes from chemical reaction). Because of this, our bodies give off what could be called a "hum," or what is better known as an aura, which is measurable. I have mentioned this earlier in the Series.

?But what is interesting about this aura is that it is serves other purposes as well. If we wear the wrong types of fibers (particularly plastics), or mixed fibers, this aura is stunted, and this stunting can tire you, as well as injure your body over a significant period of time. But, the issue is more important than this. For this aura serves other purposes as well, and one of them is defense.

?Let us talk about plants for just a moment. Plants, as well as animals, have the same thing, an aura. Strong, healthy plants have a very strong, repellant aura for insects. Perhaps you have seen the sonic devices sold in stores which repeal rodents and insects? They work under the same principle as plants use, only plants have been using this for thousands of years! When you have weak plants, devoid of nutrition and abused by an overuse of chemicals, they have no repellent properties for insects. It is akin to hanging up and ringing a dinner bell for insects to plant and water such crops. This is true in your garden as well as for farmers, but it does create a wonderful business opportunity for the chemical companies to sell more chemicals to kill the insects so that you can harvest the plants you are growing, which are basically worthless as food.

So, does this mean that strong, healthy, nutritious plants will never be attacked by insects? No, it simply means that insects will attack the weakest first. If they can find no weak plants, they will attempt to eat the healthy ones. This is a difficult task, and they will always look for the weakest ones first. This is known as the balance of nature, and unless it is interfered with, would always work to keep you, through the plants you use for food, at their healthiest, and the numbers of insects at the lowest possible level consistent with cleaning up the environment, instead of feeding off of live plants intended as food for you and I.

?The same is true in the animal kingdom, and the injured and sick animals have little or no aura. The strongest animal in a pack invariably has the strongest aura, and this aura is kept at it’s peak by his being fed the most, first, of live, or recently live, food.

?Perhaps this gives you another clue about live food, and how important at least a small portion of live food (strictly from plants, of course) is for you. You have an aura. How that aura is perceived by others, particularly insects and animals, can have an impact upon your life in many ways. An interesting area of study is essential oils, and I have not studied this subject as I should have. But essential oils can boost your aura instantly, and help to keep your body operating at peak efficiency. And do such things as repel insects and other animals.

?I do not have a problem with most dogs (saying this a week after getting bit because I ignored a warning from a dog). Most dogs will take to me instantly. With some, it takes a little longer, but eventually most any dog I come into contact with will be at my side or at my feet, if I am sitting. I understand why. My aura is stronger than most anyone else around me and dogs, and other animals, recognize this.

The same is true of insects. When you are out in the open, if you want to attract as many insects as possible, wear a nylon wind breaker, and eat pork before going out. The nylon will suppress your aura, and the pork odor of filth will do the rest. Now, one other aspect of this which I do not like is the effect of coffee on the aura. It suppresses it severely.

Once you begin to understand the basics of these subjects, the relationship of you and the earth Created for you, and how it all works in perfect harmony, becomes apparent. It is a crime against the Creator that such is not taught in our so-called churches. Even if the science behind Scripture is not known or taught, just the fact that Scripture is ignored in favor of man’s word is a crime of the worst degree, for which these "religious" men will pay a price far beyond what anyone of us can imagine.

Now, understanding the vibratory aura that our bodies gives off also reveals more of why we are commanded to be with those of like mind. And body. When your aura is unrestrained and operating correctly, you are not going to like being around those whose aura does not complement yours, and I assure you, those who have weak auras are not going to like you. These is a natural, even if unknown, repellent factor involved. It is automatic, and it is unavoidable. It is also unavoidable that you are not going to have a natural, strong and healthy aura living in a city. It simply is not possible to live in filth and corruption and have a strong body, and aura. (Consider how this relates to the filth and degradation of sodomites.)

ACRES USA has some interesting books on electricity and the body for sale in their book catalog. If they have not sent you one as yet, I suggest you ask for the catalog. I have not read these books, but the titles and the descriptions for the books are very interesting indeed.

Once you begin to see these factors of health and of life, natural living, without chemicals and without filth, becomes much more important in your life, and in the lives of your children, family, neighbors and friends. It is this strength of mind and body which made the Israelites so strong and invincible, because they followed the Laws of the Creator in every detail, and His enemies were not able to stand before them. Without this strength, it is not possible to overcome the enemies of the Creator. Without this detail of obedience to His Law, it is not possible to stand beside Him.

And since none of us, as is explained in Scripture, are Righteous Men, this is the reason for Grace, for without Grace, none of us would ever stand before Him, forgiven of our sins (of disobedience) and invited into His Presence for all Eternity. He is a Truly Righteous, and Forgiving, Power, Who has demonstrated time and time again His Love for us. Yet we continue to turn our backs on Him, and we must overcome this, and this is why we are here. We are here to learn. To learn the meaning of His Word, and His Law, and why The Word exists, and why we exist, to serve His Purposes.

I want you to carefully consider something; why did He write His Law? Does God the Creator of His Universe need His Law? Was it written for Him? No, it certainly was not; it was written solely for us; for our sole benefit. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Why are we commanded to keep the Sabbath? And I have heard the nonsense about not keeping the Sabbath outside of the so-called Promised Land, but this ignores the purpose of His Law. His Law is for our benefit; so, how can it be argued that you can not keep His Law outside of the Promised Land?

Within this Commandment to rest, in His Name, on the Seventh Day, we find the answer to stress, family problems caused by lack of communication, and the regeneration our bodies need each week. We are being told that we need approximately 1/7 of the Time allotted to us on this earth to be spent in rest. And, this Time must be in a block; not five minutes here and ten there; one, complete, total day of the week, with no work, solely for the family and friends. One Day, for Him, or for us? Which is it? Well, understanding the nature of His Law, it is obvious that it is for us, in His Name, and what could make more sense? Now, once you begin to understand this, completely, how His Law is for our benefit, you can use this knowledge to identify when you are being led astray. Everything which is designed to lead you away from Him is done as a violation of His Law. Since this means that everything designed to lead us away from Him is destructive of us, how smart are we not to understand His Law and the benefits thereof, for us?

?For instance, cleanliness is next to godliness does not refer to washing your hands, as my mother told me so many times! It refers to the cleanliness of your mind, your body, and your way of life. All of these make up cleanliness. I really hope you read Post Number 117, Diet and Health (sugar) and begin changing how you and your family live and eat. Children are not conceived with a desire for sugar, nor any other addictive substance. They are taught to like this filth by their parents. Oh, by the way, that is you. And that you were raised in this manner is no excuse. Your job is to learn, and to do better than your parents did, particularly for your children. This is your primary job, your primary duty, here; to learn, and to start your children correctly on His Path, with learning. In years past, most people understood this, and this is why no one would have dared to dictate to those people what was to be taught to their children. Perhaps this explains to you why children are having so many problems today, and why they seem so lost and insecure (for reference, see suicide rates of teenagers today).

Healthy living, to clear your mind, and to increase your ability to think. And the ability of your family and friends to think. This is why the Israelites were so strong, and this is why they were destroyed, because they became pagans, and lost their advantage in His Word. They lost their strength. They reverted to filth and the practices of the pagans, forgetting the basics of why they always prevailed over their enemies. To understand this a little better, read Scripture closely and pay particular attention to the portions dealing with handling dead bodies. Here it is revealed to you how very careful cleanliness must be adhered to, and understanding parasites and the electricity of the earth explains the reasons for this.

And this means, as well, that you must learn and use the healthy, natural cures for what ails you and your family instead of depending upon the filth of animal pus injected by the system into your bodies and the bodies of your children to weaken your immune systems.


Subject: Vaccination

From: Dale Pond <>

Organization: Delta Spectrum Research

It is exactly for this reason that I developed Our Silver Works!

We may not be able to escape being vaccinated. (After the fraudulent toxin release by you know who, those refusing to be vaccinated will be hunted down as "carriers" and "a threat to the public" and will be exterminated with extreme prejudice.) But we can insure those vaccinations will not harm us should we be forced to take them.

Warm regards, Dale Pond

Delta Spectrum Research

Sympathetic Vibratory Physics

Sacred Science - Sacred Life

SVP Discussion Forum:


About five years ago, I ripped my hand moving some very heavy pieces of equipment. Actually not a rip, but a tear, at the base of the thumb, and the separation went nearly to the bone in the hand. This came because I am very strong, and I applied a lot of force against an edge of metal, which simply parted the skin. I went to a doctor for this, and he sewed it up, after washing it out thoroughly with hydrogen peroxide. We also had quite an argument about a tetanus shot, which I refused.

These kinds of problems (torn flesh; broken bones) are for doctors, provided that you understand the basis behind healing bones (it is a welding process involving oxygen carried by the blood which automatically collects around such a break in the bone, and certain minerals). Correctly knitting bones back together can be done very quickly by adding the correct minerals to the body following a break. But to go to a doctor, and ask him to "practice medicine" on you is no different than requesting "healing magic" from the witchdoctor. In fact, if you study pharmacopoeia, you will find it is distressingly similar. Health is a personal responsibility, and asking a doctor to absolve you of the problems created by disobedience to His Law is a formula for dis-ease, pain and death. The above site has information that will help you to understand much better, but the basis is still proper nutrition and actual, live food.

Supermarkets, and "fresh fruits and vegetables." Right?

Well, actually, no. These products are picked raw, held in cold storage, and usually, hit with a chemical bath to "ripen" (color up the skin) of the product just before it is delivered to the "supermarket." But, even in the case of bananas, which usually need no coloring (some are given a chemical bath just before delivery), they are still picked raw. This destroys the ability of the fruit or vegetable to nourish, because up to 90% of the benefit from these items only comes into being as the fruit or vegetable is ripening on the plant.

Now, I want you to think about this: what happens to an expectant mother who has a child growing in her, and is eating out of a supermarket. If the child is to be healthy, where are the vitamins, minerals and the other building blocks for this new life to come from? And if the mother’s body is very weak, might this have "something" to do with the increase in birth defects and other problems with new babies? Might this also have something to do with the malaise that so many young mothers experience after child birth, when their body has been robbed of everything necessary to create that new life, and they have not been putting anything back into their bodies? Perhaps there is something to think about here. Please read the following carefully, and I really think you should subscribe to this newsletter. It is free.

Hallelujah Health Tip Issue No. 62 January 11, 1999

Hallelujah Health Tip, No. 62, is going to be different than the previous 61 issues.

Different in that you have a new editor!

My name is Rev. George Malkmus, founder and President of Hallelujah Acres. As of this issue of the Hallelujah Health Tip, I will be taking over the reins from Chet Day, who so ably handled this position for over a year.

Chet came on board here at Hallelujah Acres during the summer of 1997. One of the primary reasons Chet joined us was to create a web site for Hallelujah Acres.

While we were reaching hundreds of thousands through the printed page, we realized we could greatly expand our ministry and minister to potentially millions more through electronic communication.

Chet has developed a web site for us, plus much more, and done a masterful job! Our web site has grown from nothing to a world-wide outreach affecting multitudes. Daily, including Saturdays and Sundays, we currently receive between 100 and 400 pieces of mail off the Internet. Literally thousands around the world are learning of our ministry and being helped.

During the fall of 1997, the Hallelujah Health Tip had its beginning and Chet has done a wonderful job developing it, maintaining it, and writing articles for it.

Now Chet feels a burden to return to what he was doing before he joined us, which was researching the alternative health field and publishing Health and Beyond.

If you would like to keep up with what Chet is doing, you can subscribe to his free e-mail publication, Health and Beyond Weekly. Send a note to and he'll sign you right up. (I recommend you do this as well; the latest subscription location I have is: — David)

For the remainder of this Health Tip, l would like to share a little about what you can expect in future issues:

Tips on how you can improve your health naturally. Answer letters and questions regarding Biblical Nutrition! Keep you up to date as to what is happening in the Alternative Health Field! Share testimonies from those who have been helped through this ministry! Keep you abreast as to what is happening here at Hallelujah Acres, including where seminars are being held. Share recipes that will make the Hallelujah Diet more appetizing and doable! I will try and keep it varied, as well as challenging and exciting!

I would appreciate hearing from you as to what you would like to see covered in future Health Tips. Send your thoughts, ideas, and testimonies to I will do my best to personally read each letter, but I cannot guarantee a personal response because of my traveling and extremely heavy workload. If I receive enough questions on a particular subject, I will address that question in a future Health Tip or post it in our new and greatly expanded Hallelujah Diet Frequently Asked Questions.

I will do my best to send out a Health Tip at least twice a month, but because I am frequently on the road doing seminars, I cannot guarantee exactly what day of the week future issues will go out.

Every day, testimonies come in from all over the world from people who have been helped by this ministry. Let me share a few of them with you:

"Dear George & Rhonda: I have experienced so many wonderful changes in my health since I started on the Hallelujah Diet in April of 1998. I have lost 23 lbs. And ALL of my arthritis is gone and it feels great to be pain free - no more scratchy joints and constant discomforts. I was so surprised to see all the other little improvements that I didn't even expect. Thank you for this marvelous message." - Beverly

"Dear Dr. George: It's me, Jonathan, I know you don't know me, but I've been studying some of your materials, and they have been such a blessing to me and my family. Thank you and Glory to God. I am using the information that you wrote about in your books to help me honor God in my body, and I am reaping tremendous results in return. But, I am not writing this to talk about me. I am writing this because there are friends of mine that are being 'destroyed for lack of knowledge.' I try to help them as much as I can, with what I have learned, but I am only a child 15 years old. And so I would be very grateful if you would send your Back to the Garden newsletter to the following people as soon as possible." - Jonathan

George's Closing Words

That's it for issue No. 62 of the Hallelujah Health Tip. I look forward to visiting you at least 26 times in 1999. Rhonda and the staff here at Hallelujah Acres join me in sending our love and best wishes for a fabulous 1999, and I trust this new year will be the very best year ever in both your life and home.

Rev. George Malkmus

Editor, Hallelujah Health Tip


?There is a lot to the science of eating, and none of it involves the filth produced for profit by the multi-national corporations. This is the choice you must make, and the sooner you make it, the sooner you will begin to understand health, and experience the benefits designed into the earth for us by The Creator.


What is Ozone?

Ozone is a benign non-persistent molecule with a very short half life. Ozone, known as the "sanitary gas" or activated oxygen, has been proven to kill 99.9% of all known bacteria including salmonella and e-colli. Ozone is used to literally destroy odors by breaking down the biological structure of the offender, whether it be air-borne or at the source. Unlike conventional air fresheners that only serve to mask odors, ozone seeks out and destroys the offender at the source.

Although ozone is very powerful, it has a very short life cycle. When O3 is introduced into an area and comes in contact with bacteria, viruses, etc., the extra molecule of oxygen destroys its victims by rapid oxidation, the final result being a fresh clean smelling room.


Greenhouse and Hydroponics Applications

The application of ozone in the hydroponic and greenhouse industry has been used successfully for many years to eradicate viruses, molds, bacteria and general air pollution. The proper setup, use and maintenance of an ozone generator will create a productive, healthy, safe and controlled environment, unfavorable for the proliferation of molds, bacteria, viruses and every undesirable odor.

Other Applications

Ozone is used in hundreds of applications and spans a vast array of markets including:

Restaurants, pubs, hospitals, workshops, offices, greenhouses, factories, homes, public, washrooms, farms, processing plants, waste treatment areas.

Why Build an Ozone Unit?

The construction of an "ozone generator" seems to be a technology reserved strictly for the high tech firms, but quite the opposite is true. The basic workbench principle is easy to understand and the actual construction can be carried out by anyone who can follow simple instruction and has access to a basic inventory of home handyman tools.

Following is a dealers' list taken from the internet, names and model #'s are not included for obvious reasons, but I would like to state here: a little initiative will save you hundreds of dollars!

This example is taken from an actual price list, however, the unit output versus price varies greatly from dealer to dealer. All quotes are in Canadian dollars.

Output Price

800 mg./hr. $ 535.00

2.4 g/hr $ 1,495.00

13 g./hr. . $2,850.00

20 g/hr. $ 3,900.00


As you can see, many dealers and manufacturers are charging huge markups for the miracle these machines perform. I am offering these simple-to-follow plans for only $14.95 Cdn. postage and handling included.

Plans Include

detailed plans for assembly in an easy-to-understand format

detailed list of parts

where to locate the required parts

tools you will need

installation instructions

maintenance and safety precautions

what the unit should and should not do

suggestions and tips.

ALL FOR ONLY $14.95!

For your copy, send a cheque or money order payable to:

P. McLean

# 34 - 1150 N. Terminal Ave.,

Unit #107, Nanaimo, BC

V9S - 5L6

Email Us


?I have not looked at these plans, but I have corresponded with the man selling them and he assures me that the machine will work as advertised. I strongly recommend that you have an Ozone machine. It is one of the best investments that your family can make. I do doubt that any worthwhile machine can be built for the price mentioned. I have talked with a number of people who build these machines, and no one I know can come close to this figure for the parts. But then, perhaps there is a different way of doing this that I am not aware of. If you do not want to build your own unit, I do have a source for them and would be happy to get you a machine.

?The following perhaps belongs in Part XX rather than here, but I think that this is information which you need now, to begin to prepare, and to learn. And I am referring to you learning a useful skill; one which is marketable outside of the United States. One which will make you an asset to any community you join.

The Old Timer's Page:

The Old Timer's Page; The Way We Used To Do it...

When my grandfather got his first tractor he decided to keep his horses and old horse-drawn equipment in case the day ever came when he couldn't buy gas or tractor parts. Grandpa, his horses and farm machinery are now gone. But his vision lives on.

The Spring House

The Ice House

Building a Root Cellar (5 pages)

Potting Meat

Salt Curing Meat

Yeast Cultures for Bread Making

Making Bread in a wood burning oven

Making Butter

Making Sauerkraut

Soap Making (9 pages & 3 Sites)

Growing and Harvesting Wheat By Hand

Building a Cistern

The Out House

Memories, by Libby Maxwell

Just for Fun - The Homestead House

Just for Fun - Getting Electricity

Just for Fun - Getting Water

Links to Other Sites

Old Time Trade Exhibitions at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia.

The 1850 Westville, GA Living History Museum See 1850's cooking, candle making,

buildings & furnishings, black smithing, spinning and weaving, pottery making...

Colonial Pennsylvania Plantation

Association of Personal Historians. Helping people preserve their life stories.

The Online Homesteading and Small Farming Resource

Spinning Wheel FAQs by Christine Jordan

Handmade Parchment & Vellum

Cheese Making

Hand weavers Guild of America, Inc.

Cisterns by the University of Florida

The Rural Resource Center

The Kansas Pioneer Way of Life by Norris Torrance

Jackie's Smoke House

The Rug maker's Homestead '99 Learn to make a rag rug.

Old type bread baking ovens

The Home Steader Web Ring

Family History of Walter Scott

The John C. Campbell Folk School

It has been said that when a person dies a library burns. Only those who have tried to compile a life story on someone who has departed this life knows what a reality this is. Today there is an increasing self-awareness among many toward becoming more self reliant. We try new things and - in my opinion - try to re-invent the wheel. The pioneers of 100 years ago were already more self-sufficient than most of us will ever be. Perhaps instead of looking to the future and new ways of doing things, we ought to at least take a small look into the past and re-acquaint ourselves with the old ways that are proven, that work, yet are nearly forgotten. The subjects listed on this page comes from the old folks themselves. Occasionally their stories have been supplemented with newer ways of doing the same things, but generally the ideas and methods remain theirs.


Please read the above, visit the site, and begin to learn and understand that you/we are living in the aberration. The time of today is not what is real, or in your best interest. It may be good for the lazy, or the parasite, but it has no benefits to offer you, or your family, other than an early death after a lifetime of slavery for others. To be self-sufficient is to deny the parasites their ability to live off of your wealth and labor, because the more self-sufficient you become, the more you are be able to limit your outside needs which increasingly can come only from the multi-national corporations. You must make this choice or resign yourself to an early, probably painful death after slaving your life away for others.

The present-day perversion of the sciences, medicine, education, Christianity and morality is an outworking of the grand Luciferian Plan to enslave the world and reflects the corruption of present-day government in every nation. Present-day society and governments are set to disintegrate due to internal strife’s and monetary collapse for the introduction of a New Worldly (or secular) Order signified by the Illuminati symbol engraved on the obverse of the American Seal by Luciferian Thomas Jefferson. Franklin D. Roosevelt was so sure he would introduce the NWO he commenced his presidency with his "New Deal" version of dictatorship intended to be developed into totalitarianism when the time was ripe. So confident was Roosevelt of this that he fixed the Illuminati symbol to the back of US dollar bills. Stalin's double-cross at Yalta sent him insane and he is said to have blown his face away with a shotgun.

The following site is an excellent source of additional information. There really are two classes of people in America, and two systems of law; His, and man’s parasitic system.

Subject: Supreme Law Library


Hi David, We have also taken great pains to document the pertinent court cases holding that there are two classes of citizens in America.

A good entry point into our website is the Press Releases at URL:

A very advanced application of this knowledge is Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF at URL:

See Topic "A" challenging the Jury Selection and Service Act for deliberately excluding

State Citizens from grand and petit jury service.

Your education is now sufficient for the following, to give you a real view of exactly what the nature is of man’s government; every version of man’s government which has ever or can ever exist. Remember this as you read:

They........ contemplate government as a private monopoly and the people as hereditary property." Thomas Paine

"R. J. Tavel, JD" <>

From: James Montgomery <jamontgomery@InfoAve.Net>


The fore fathers that represented the states (colonies) at the beginning of this country acted primarily for their interest, this is brought out by Lysander Spooner, in his paper on "The Constitution of no Authority". They represented the states, formally the colonies, which were created by the king of England, by his Charters and his established Cestui

Que Trust. The 1783 Peace Treaty ceded the land above ground to the states, while reserving through Article 6 of the 1783 Treaty his corporation, and the corporations of his British subjects. As I have said before, if you will look at other charters you will see the king is very specific when he gives land by grant, or charter to his subjects. If the king had meant to give the minerals to the states he would have said so very clearly in the 1783 Peace Treaty. The 1783 Peace Treaty is void of any such grant. The king did not relinquish his claim for his heirs and successors, nor could he; his tax was to continue forever, for his expenditure in starting America Inc.. This condition does tie together with what happened post Civil War, the king's interest, continued to be observed and a tax collected.

In a few of the below quotes you will see Lysander Spooner will answer a snopses on how the common law is supposed to work, but at the same time, his arguments are flawed. Not that he is wrong, but he fails to take into account, Charters, Treaties and Conquest. To show a comparison between Lysander Spooner's view on how the law is supposed to work, I am including after his quotes, quotes from the Attorney General during the time of the Reconstruction Acts were issued. The Attorney General defines the

Reconstruction Acts, giving his complete read to their meaning. You will be astounded at his candor and blatant disregard for the 1787 Constitution, and Anglo Saxon common law, so ably expounded upon by the quotes of Lysander Spooner.

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. AND THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they COULD bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: No Treason:" (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"THE CONSTITUTION NOT ONLY BINDS NOBODY NOW, BUT IT NEVER DID BIND ANYBODY. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a WRITTEN instrument binds no one until he has signed it. (The Informer asked me to inject here: that in Title 12 it is your signature that binds you to the debt, and or the lack of a signature that makes you an involuntary contributor.) This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk -- that is, a man who could write -- was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either "made their mark," or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"The very men who drafted it, never signed it in any way to bind themselves by it, AS A CONTRACT. And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, AS A CONTRACT."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"....And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract -- the Constitution -- made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind US, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself invironed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

Again, in the perfect world, not ruled or controlled by Conquest, Military necessity or public policy, and assuming you had honorable judges and informed juries; you may be relieved of liability for voting. However, since the end of the Civil War, the Conqueror has used voting or your mere presence in the state for proof of residence, as your tacit admission and agreement for whatever action Congress takes, whereby they levy a tax.

The following quote is very true. I have been warning this is the condition of our country, and that the government controls this country contrary to the 1787 U.S. Constitution, at least since March 4 1791 and for sure since March 2, 1867, when an Act of Congress destroyed the 1787 Constitution.

"Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we CHOOSE to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not CHOOSE to make ourselves INDIVIDUALLY known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

Spooner's below statement is true except for the reality of Conquest.

"These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a "government," for the purpose of securing its protection, unless he first make an explicit and purely voluntary contract with it for that purpose.

It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to support the Constitution. Consequently we have no evidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it."(The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

Remember in a previous post where you were shown the Judge Advocate General's authority over the districts was given to the Attorney General, now you know why certain things have taken place in our government. I include it here for you.

"If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice." Congressman Lawrence

The below quotes are from Attorney General Henry Stanbery, June 12, 1867. He defines the Reconstruction Acts, as the head law enforcement officer of the United States government.

"The 3d section declares, "that it shall be the duty of each officer, assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference, under color of State authority; with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"The 5th section declares the qualification of voters in all elections, as well to frame the new constitution for each State, as in the elections to be held under the provisional government, until the new State constitution is ratified by Congress, and also fixes the qualifications of the delegates to frame the new constitution." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

Are you listening America, a new Constitution, meaning the old one was done away with, I have said this many many times. Was I right about the state governments being done away with, and provisional governments put in their place? Yes. I have said this affected all states, the government says this condition of Conquest was for a short time and did not affect all of the states. Wrong. Why was the emergency declared? Because the southern states refused to ratify the 14th Amendment. Let me ask you this, is the 14th Amendment regional or national? Does it not affect the whole country? Is it not still enforced? Ask yourself, what would happen if the states removed the 14th Amendment? The Military would again take to the streets, the state governments would again become provisional, until the necessary changes were made to appease the Conquering government.

Read on.

"The 6th section provides, "That until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions of the 5th section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any such provisional governments who would not be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"We see clearly enough that this act contemplates two distinct governments in each of these ten States: the one military, the other civil. The civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act. The military government is created by the act." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"Both are provisional, and both are to continue until the new State constitution is framed and the State is admitted to representation in Congress. When that event takes place, both these provisional governments are to cease. In contemplation of this act, this military authority and this civil authority are to be carried on together. The people in these States are made subject to both, and must obey both, in their respective jurisdictions." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"It had all the characteristics and powers of a State government--legislative, judicial, and executive -- and was in the full and lawful exercise of all these powers, except only that it was not entitled to representation as a State of the Union." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

Excuse me Roger Rabbit, where in the 1787 Constitution was Congress given the authority to deny any state government representation in Congress? Add to this the southern states were admitted Republican forms of government, not to mention this Military occupation and Conquest took place during a time of admitted peace? Come on America, WAKE THE HELL UP, cut your television's off, it is late in the day, start studying, time is short.

"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State, or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to preserve order and to punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"Whatever power is not given to the military remains with the civil government." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

Wow, did you hear that America? What did they do? Now instead of our co-equal reservation of rights under the 10th Amendment we have only what the Conquering government allows us to have, in case you have forgotten what the 10th Amendment is, I'll use a quote from Jefferson here, and I quote:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people."

"To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." February 15, 1791 Thomas Jefferson

"We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United States" -- not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation -- "as hereinafter prescribed." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"It appears that some of the military commanders have understood this grant of power as all comprehensive, conferring on them the power to remove the executive and judicial officers of the State, and to appoint other officers in their places; to suspend the legislative power of the State; to take under their control, by officers appointed by themselves, the collection and disbursement of the revenues of the State; to prohibit the execution of the laws in matters affecting purely civil and private rights; to suspend or enjoin the execution of the judgments and decrees of the established State courts; to interfere in the ordinary administration of justice in the State courts, by prescribing new qualifications for jurors, and to change, upon the ground of expedience, the existing relations of the parties to contracts, giving protection to one party by violating the rights of the other party." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"The concluding paragraph of this order, No. 10, is in these words, "Any law or ordinance heretofore in force in North Carolina or South Carolina, inconsistent with the provisions of this general order, are hereby suspended and declared inoperative." Thus announcing, not only a power to suspend the laws, but to declare them generally inoperative, and assuming full powers of legislative by the military authority." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"The ground upon which these extraordinary powers are based is thus set forth in military order, No. 1, issued in this district: "The civil government now existing in North Carolina and South Carolina is provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United [*196] States, at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same." Thus far the provisions of the act of Congress are well recited. What follows is in these words: "Local laws and municipal regulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the proclamations of the President, or with such regulations as are or may be prescribed in the orders of the commanding general, are hereby declared to be in force; and, in conformity therewith, civil officers are hereby authorized to continue the exercise of their proper functions, and will be respected and obeyed by the inhabitants." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"This construction of his powers, under the act of Congress, places the military commander on the same footing as the Congress of the United States. It assumes that "the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede," is vested in him as fully as it is reserved to Congress. He deems himself a representative of that paramount authority. He puts himself upon an equality with the law-making power of the Union; the only paramount authority in our government, so far, at least, as the enactment of laws is concerned." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"He places himself on higher ground than the President, who is simply an executive officers. He assumes, directly or indirectly, all authority of the State, legislative, executive, and judicial, and in effect declares, "I am the State." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.... from, at least, the CIVIL WAR in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

I'll let this soak in. August 9, 1998 James


?And soak in it should, because until you understand the "thinking" behind the governments of man, you will never understand the only solutions to the problem. Man’s governments have always been criminal enterprises cloaked in so-called law. Let me repeat that; man’s governments have always been criminal enterprises. There has never and can never be an exception to this. They are occupied by the worst kind of criminal parasite who has no desire to work, but will struggle mightily to steal from the common man, using whatever artifice is necessary to conceal his true intent. For reference, I give you Bill Clinton, who admits that he has never held a job outside of "government."

The purpose of this Series was to teach you to think, and to have you start learning the real basis and meaning behind "citizenship" and "allegiance." The real "intent" of the laws which have been passed and which you have been programmed to think were passed in your best interest, when nothing could be further from the Truth. To show you, in a very convincing manner, the criminal intent behind government.

It is only when you have learned this basis that you can begin to understand freedom and responsibility, and can then make a decision on whether to withdraw or not from man’s government; get ye out of her! And yet, there is much more to this than what you are going to read in these papers. There are two jurisdictions on this earth, and the following explains the thinking "within" the other jurisdiction very well, and tells us where our problem started and why we have it today.


Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes

In chapters 17 &18 of Revelation in the Bible it is Revealed that a particular Religious

Jurisdiction is recognizable as a "Great Prostitute" who "Rules over the Kings of the Earth" through the use of "Deception", "Magic", & "Merchants". This "Great Prostitute" who uses Deceptive Magic is clearly labeled therein as "BABYLON".

With reference to such reputable modern textbooks as "Historical Jurisprudence" by Guy

Carlton, Lee; of Johns Hopkins University in 1922; Babylon's Religious Priesthood is commonly recognized as the source of the modern so called "Laws of Commerce". These "Laws of Commerce" are shown to be a specific body of Codes which authorize the Administration of Compelling Force in Efforts to uphold Contracts, mostly for Payments of Debts. The ancient Babylonian Priests were involved because Contracts were deemed to be a form of "Oath" entered into by the contracting parties; & the approval of the Gods were invoked so as to more effectively legitimize the entire process in the minds & the consciences of the contracting parties & all public witnesses.

These Babylonian Religious Codes recognized the ability to buy & sell contracts between merchants in "Commerce". They bought & sold "slaves & the souls of men" in the time of Christ, and before and after. Under this system of Babylonian Codes, contracteddebtorpeople were Forcibly Compelled to perform the contract regardless of Conscionability, or who was the contractcreditor. This Babylonian Religious Commercial Code embodied a sub-codification which is modernly recognizable as "MasterServant Relationships", which are also the source of modern EmployerEmployee Codes.

This is all Babylonian Religious Code, whereunder, "Temporary Slavery" is facilitated. People were not recognized as people thereunder, but were items in Commerce. The Slave could be arrested for not showing up for work on time. Textbooks say that "The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle". ... "Of ... these Rome was ... possessed from the earliest period ... " ("Historical Jurisprudence" Lee)

History seems to tell that many Israelites had been captured into Slavery in Babylon, but by the time of Christ Jesus, many had returned. The Babylonian Commercial Merchant Codes seemed to infect Israelite society at the same time, and to undermine greatly the Godly Principles of the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees had schools in Babylon "from soon after 586 before the Christian era to the year 1040 after the Christian era; 1626 years". J.H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi 1934) reveals the source of the material which is Codified within their "Babylonian Talmud". This is that sourcerepository from which the modern Talmud draws its historical roots. J.H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi) and others of the same belief are all comfortable referring to it amongst themselves as the "Babylonian Talmud". He states: "The style of the Babylonian Talmud ... is at no time "easy reading"." As the name signifies, the "Babylonian Talmud" contains much of the Commercial SlaveTrading Mercantile Codifications of "MasterServant Relationships" which originated in Babylon.

The "Babylonian Talmud" refers to those not of the Pharisaical Faith as "Goim" or "Gois", which translates to be "Human Cattle". This is just as the textbooks refer to the Babylonians considering their Slaves. Though direct citations are thin in eluding to Slavery itself, the "Babylonian Talmud" does set forth some such evidence showing clearly that nonPharisees are to be treated with all of the "Contempt" of Slaves. "All things pertaining to the Goim are like desert, the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own." Babha Bathra 45. It is permitted to deceive a goi." Babha Kama 113b. And though citations are not clear that this is directly from the Talmud, Pharisaical Literature at A. Rohl. Die Polem. P.20 states "The Life of a Goi and all his physical powers belong to a Jew." And articles published by Henry Ford's newspaper, the Dearborn Independent in 1920-1922 discuss the "Kol Nidre" as a Pharisaical: "prayer, named from its opening words, "All vows"," (kol nidre). It is based on the declaration of the Talmud: "He who wishes that his vows & oaths shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year & say:

'All vows which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.' " "

The list goes on and on. Coke and others have defined these People as "Infidels", precisely because History has clearly shown to the more reputable men that the "Oath" of such others means nothing to them. They cannot be "Bound" by "Conscience," & they habitually "Lie" at every turn which may serve their own self-serving interests or those of their "Synagogue of Satan" as referred to by Christ Jesus at Revelation 2:9 & 3:9. This is the nature of their "Law", among these would be Slave Masters. They cannot be expected to be bound to tell the truth to those other people whom they feel EnTitled by the Authority of their Evil God to control such unsuspecting other men as Slaves.

Such "Infidels" were expelled from almost every country in Europe between the 13th & 15th centuries for this precise reason of their tenacious adherence to this Babylonian MasterSlave system of Human Conduct Codes, & their relentless lying and deceit.

The Sadducees apparently stood strong against this corrupting influence, but their days were numbered, for after the destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70 AD, the religious belief system of the Sadducees had met genocide and extinction. The Pharisees (on the other hand) were conspicuously left in the position of authority over all Jews who did not profess Christianity. The Jewish Encyclopedia: (1905 Page 665) shows that the ancient Religion of the Pharisees have been in continuous total control of what is fashionably recognized as the "Jewish Religion", ever since the destruction of Solomon's Temple. "With the destruction of there Temple ...Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees ... Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism & the life & thought of the Jew for all the future."

With the extinction of the Sadducees, the only Jewish entity which thereafter stood in opposition to the Pharisees and their Babylonian Codified Talmud were the Christians. The powers in Rome were Compromised by this influence. As revealed elsewhere, this Religion of the Pharisees continues to this day under their self proclaimed banner of "Judaism" or "Jews". They are not true "Jews" (*true Jews, in this sense, would mean that they are descended from the Tribe of Judah, which is the reason that this term has been introduced into language and is used to confuse us; so we would "believe" that these men are of Israel. Please see the explanation at the end of this piece for the True explanation. — David) but rather they are of the "Synagogue of Satan", precisely as Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 state. They merely proclaim such out of strategy to effect their purpose. Approximately 85% of them are not even of the "Semitic" bloodline, but rather are of Ashkanazi background/race. They adopted the PharisaicalBabylonian Talmudian Religion in about the year AD740 or so, out of convenience. They know this but they scream "anti-Semite" with spine chilling fervor whenever it suits their evil agenda. Modern descendants of these same Pharisees look to the same "Babylonian Talmud" code of Master/Slave Laws as the principle source for written guidance as a Code of Conduct for their lives.

Textbooks show plainly that Rome is the source of English & American Civil Law. Civil Law is recognized in Black's Law Dictionary as synonymous with "Municipal Law". Rome is well recognizable as an Aggressively Warring & Conquering nation. Textbooks say that the conquered cities "were compelled to pay the wartax" ... "a town thus treated was known as a municipum or "burdenholder"." Many of the conquered peoples were reduced to Slaves.

The Roman merchants engaged in much Slave Trade. They established Slavemarkets. Contracts exchanged hands among merchants for the delivery of Slaves. The Codes which governed these contracts for Slaves was based on the same Codes which the Babylonians had developed. "Of ... these Rome was ... possessed from the earliest period ... ". ("Historical Jurisprudence" Lee). Such Babylonian Master/Slave so called "Law" is modernly still recognizable under either term of "Civil" or "Municipal" Law. The majority of Biblical Scholars recognize Rome to be the 6th head of the 7 headed "Beast" described in Revelation upon which the "Great Prostitute" sat & which was in existence at that time of Christ, the Civil/Military government of Rome. The 7th head is similarly recognized as then prophesying of our modern AngloAmerican Civil/Military government. (Please note at end of this Part for an explanation of this, and always remember; the reason most are recognized as Biblical Scholars and funding provided for their work is because they toe the demanded line of dis-information and do not rock the boat with the Truth. — David)

Norman Conquest

The Norman Conquest over the AngloSaxon/Celtic people of England in 1066 is vastly underrated in its significance to understanding modern considerations of good government. From Rome, it had the "Solemn Blessings of the Pope". The Pharisaical system of "Babylonian Talmudian" based "Commercial Law" was at that time Forcibly Imposed over the Christian Common Law English People. An article in "The Georgetown Law Journal" V. 71, P 1179 1200) by: Judith A. Shapiro entitled "The Shetar's Effect on English Law" sheds much light.

"The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England ... brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. ... Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. ... Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and immovable" was a weapon of socioeconomic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding. ... Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land." "Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class. I hope you understand that this is directly counter to Biblical Law. — David)). Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock & F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469... (alien to English law for creditor not in possession of land to have rights in it)."

The Pharisees worked with the Normans under the "Blessing of the Pope" of Rome and its Roman Civil Municipal Codes, all so as to establish this "weapon of socioeconomic change that tore the fabric" of the society of the AngloSaxon/Celtic peoples. These are the words of Ms Shapirro as they appear in the Georgetown Law Journal. The aggressively warring nature of that Babylonian Talmudian based Code of Pharisaical Conduct is not in question among that circle of scholars. It is a body of Slave/Master Codes. It "tears at the fabric" of that society which it targets.

The "Shetar" is a corruption of the word "Star" and refers to the famous "Star Chamber Courts." "The name star chamber ... has been thought to be ... because the roof was originally studded with stars, because the Jewish covenants (called starrs or stars ...) were originally kept there." Boviers 1860.

"Starr or starra. The old term for contract or obligation among the Jews, being a corruption from the Hebrew word "shetar", a covenant, ... and Blackstone conjectures that the room in which the chests were kept was thence called the "StarChamber."" "Star Chamber: A court which originally had jurisdiction in cases where the ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed by one party, ... that no inferior court would find its process obeyed. ... In the reign of Henry the 8th, and his successors, the jurisdiction of the court was illegally extended to such a degree (especially in punishing the kings arbitrary proclamations) that it became odious to the nation, and was abolished." Blacks 5th.

These courts of Pharisaical Commercial Master/Slave Codes became heinous in part for their "Secret Proceedings" and their infliction of "Cruel & Unusual Punishments" that they were abolished. They were the essence of the so called Equity Jurisdiction. It was all run by Chancery Priests, and referred to deceptively as "Courts of Equity", the only thing being "Equal" about them is that all Conquered "Slaves" thereunder are treated more or less Equally. "Courts of Chancery" is a more honest name, as it was great "Chance" taken to go before such.

"The whole of equity jurisprudence prevailing in England & the United States is mainly based on the civil law", so says Boviers Law Dictionary of 1868. "Civil Law" is from Rome. There was no "Equity Jurisprudence" in England prior to the Norman Conquest. The Norman Conquest had the "solemn approval of the Pope" of Rome according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Other sources conform the Roman Popes support and blessing.

The conclusion to Reasonable Men is that the Norman's "War of Aggression" was jointly backed by the Christ Killing Pharisees and the Pope of Rome, so as to Forcibly Impose the Roman Civil/Municipal Codes of Babylonian Talmudic based Master/Slave relations. These were mere Tools for Slave Control which were early imposed by Evil Men with great influence within the Pharisaical and Catholic religious communities. Any Truly Godly Spirituality which may have existed within either of those religious organizations was most assuredly bound & gagged by the more powerful forces of Evil therein at the times of the Norman Conquest. As at the Crusades. As at the Inquisition. These entities have very bad track records.

Evil men Aggressively made Religious War against the Christian/CommonLaw AngloSaxon/Celtic Peoples of England in 1066. The "Babylonian Talmud" was completed well before the Norman Conquest of 1066. It's all the same basic Master/Slave Commerce form of Code of Human Conduct. It all treats living breathing People as "Merchandise" in Commerce to be bought and sold as those "Slaves & the Souls of Men" as referred to in Revelation 18:13. This entire body of Codified Human Conduct is all so amorally lacking in fidelity to the Supreme Laws of "Love of Neighbor" from YHVH as taught by His Son Yeshuah as to be clearly a policy of the "Synagogue of Satan" as referred to at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. It is easy to summarize that this is that precise same Code of Human Conduct of which the Pharisee "Money Changers" were using to corrupt the Temple in Jerusalem, and of which Christ Jesus overturned their tables and drove them out of His Father's House with the whip. It is easy to summarize that this is the Code of Conduct upon which the Pharisees moved to whip up the mob into such a fervent state of Anarchy as to abort "Due Process of Law" and to have Yeshua the Christ Lawlessly nailed to the Cross (or stake).

This Code of Conduct embodied within the "Babylonian Talmud" is very large, but it contains specific portions which are designed to "Tear at the Fabric" of the society which is its target. These are the words of Ms Shapirro, as set forth in the Georgetown Law Journal. This is not the wording of "AntiSemitic Right Wing Extremists." Ms Shapiro's term "Tear" is specifically used to denote that process which obliterated the "Fabric of ... Society", as it had existed prior to that War of Aggression. It would seem Reasonable to conclude that this is a Code of Human Conduct based on "Terrorism". Certainly the word "Tear" seems related to "Terrorism". Certainly the AngloSaxon/Celtic Christian People were greatly Fear Inspired by the forcible imposition of this "Babylonian Talmud" based Code of Human Conduct. The wording of Ms Shapirro Reasonably seems to be an acknowledgment that "Terrorism" was used by the Normans & the Pharisees "who call themselves Jews" as a matter of policy under that Code of Human Conduct known as the "Babylonian Talmud".

This entire body of Roman Civil Law is based upon "Contracts", and it was early incorporated into what was known as English "Law Merchant", which many fine scholars have confused as being a true part of the English "CommonLaw". Such happened only after corrupting influence of the Norman Conquest.

Contracts are only enforceable in Courts of so-called "Equity." "Equity" jurisdiction was allowed to enter into American Jurisprudence by way of Article 3, Section 21 of the U.S. Constitution. Such was a slap in the face of Christ Jesus, and much Evil has worked its purpose in this land by way of that compromise of Godly Principles.

However, Equity is purged from all of its authority to adjudicate anything if proper "Due Process of Law" is invoked, as such process is set forth in Beacon Theaters v Westover. This modern essence of "Law" allows Americans to free themselves by "Due Process of Law" from the Babylonian Master/Slave jurisdiction of so called "Equity". C.B.S. May 99.


We are commanded to have no false gods. What does this mean? And how does this relate to the above? And how does this relate to clearing our minds of the nonsense of this earth? The false gods of the earth are the illusions we build within our own minds.

From: "Gregory Thomas. Williams" <>

God has said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."1 The words "gods" and "God" are translated from the single word 'elohiym2 in the plural. 'Elohiym’ is defined "rulers, judges"3 and "occasionally applied as deference to magistrates"4 while in the New Testament the word God is translated from the Greek word theos which figuratively means "a magistrate."5

If you were in court and spoke to a judge in Hebrew or Greek what you called him would be translated into 'god'. This simple fact which is verified in your own Strong's Concordance has lead to one of the most common and devastating misconception concerning the Bible and the teachings of the prophets.

The emperors were often referred to as gods using the word theos. Not because any one believed that they created heaven and earth but because they were the chief magistracy and ruler of the people.6 When I read what Karen wrote:

... In Websters an oath is confirmation of the truth by naming something sacred. As in I swear to tell the whole truth so help me God etc. Now that would be a type of oath.... Karen

It suddenly struck me funny, in a peculiar way. The words 'so help me god'... in what person are we speaking? Are we addressing the judge, the god of the court, who can now punish us if he believes we are not telling him the truth? (You are known by whose L(l)aws you study and keep, and as such, who is your J(j)udge. — David)

Gregory at the ekklesia home page

1 Exodus 20:3

2 Strong's No. 0430 'elohiym {el-o-heem'} plural of 433

3 On line Bible and Concordance. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

4 Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.

5 Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.

6 "The last act was the formal decree of the senate by which Augustus, like his father Julius before him, was added to the number of the gods recognized by the Roman state." Encylopedia Britanica 1953,Vol II, pp. 689b


?The above gives a slightly different way of looking at the law by which we chose to be governed. And make no mistake, we chose to be so governed. There is no government of man which is capable of governing a man devoted to His Law. It is not possible. However, when we chose different gods to answer to, there are material changes taking place not only in our relationships, but within ourselves as well.

Now, this brings us to Children, and Education. Frankly, if so-called public education did not have evil intent behind the "system" that is so obviously there, what I have done in researching and writing this Series would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of hidden conclaves, suppressed information and altered records. It would be silly to "assume" that the situation today is any different than yesterday, for one of the truest of all maxims is that history repeats itself, endlessly. And this occurs solely due to the foolishness of man.

When you finally come to grips with this, as I did many years ago, you confront personal responsibility. I compare it to finally growing up, when you learn that learning only occurs when you desire it to, and that when others pay for teachers, those teachers teach what they are told to teach, and if it is the Truth or not is of no consequence. The teacher who teaches for money will always be responsible to the source of his pay, as this source is his master. No "system" can work in any other way. This is why it is important to learn what is really happening in the education system, for education determines what course any nation is to take. This is why public education mandated for all children is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. It has nothing to do with education; it has to do with careful, controlled programming, of the children. And to assert, as several have done to me, that public education has been around for centuries and has always proven to be of a great benefit is to miss the target entirely. What was called public education in the past was a local concern, where the parents paid the teachers, sometimes through a church, and local control of the subjects taught was absolute. No one would have dared try and dictate to those parents what was to be taught to their children!

Today, the situation is entirely different. Centralized control of education is attempted for one purpose, and one purpose only; programming of the children of the nation into a mold desired by those who will benefit from the molding. If you fail to understand this, I suggest you acquire a copy of the Communist Manifesto and begin studying. Perhaps some reasons may occur to you after some time spent at this.

One of the best sources of information on public education and the intent behind it can be found here:

Please read the two following books, found on the above site, and then decide, public education, and television, for your children, or not?

Assault on Childhood


You will also find The Empire of "The City" here, which I highly recommend! And under Giant Humans and Dinosaurs, you will find some pictures. With one picture, of a very old hammer, you will find this:

This interesting photograph is of a hammer found in similar strata. It's iron head and wooden handle are solidified in sandstone. Metallurgical studies show that it was constructed of a type of iron that could not have been made under present atmospheric conditions. It is believed that before the flood our atmosphere was compressed to approximately twice its current density, and no ultraviolet radiation.

Now, remember back to an earlier Part of The Series where I mentioned how the world was enclosed in a shell of metal (hydrogen), which combined with much of the oxygen then in the atmosphere and became rain when the shell came down, causing the Great Flood, and how the atmosphere prior to the Great Flood was much denser and contained a much greater percentage of oxygen. To understand all of the lies we have been told, all of this information is essential. And, this information is also essential to assist us in making the correct choice in choosing our G(g)od.

But to make sense of this information, you also need to closely examine what is behind the people who control Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and all other isms, so that you can armor yourself and your family and friends with the knowledge that will set you free! And to do this, you need a deep look into the thinking behind these people.

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world over population problem."

Dr. LaMont Cole, Yale University environmentalist

"Right now there are just way too many people on the planet. A total world population of

250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels would be ideal."

Ted Turner, husband of Hanoi Jane Fonda, Chmn of the Board of Turner Broadcasting, who owns CNN; Director, Martin Luther King Center.

"Every child who believes in God is mentally ill."

Dr. Paul Brandwein, leading U.S. child psychologist

"We reject the idea of private property."

Peter Berle, former President, National Audubon Society, Board Member, Sierra Club

"I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become Communists."

Jane Fonda, wife of Ted Turner. American women have poured double digit millions of dollars into her pocket for her fitness videos. Telling people how to get a figure created through plastic surgery....

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, founder, World Wildlife Fund. Do you suppose his offspring think any differently? Like father, like sons......

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Tim Wirth, former member of Congress, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, and one of a number of politicians (including Barbie Boxer, Barney Frank, Al Gore, John Kerry, Daniel Moynihan, Chris Shays and others) who have been identified as "Green Leadership for the '90's."

You Don't Say by Fred Gielow can be ordered through Accuracy in Media at 1-800-787-4567; cost is $16.00 + S/H

Let me give you a couple more quotes from those caring, compassionate liberal nut cases:

"Human happiness and certainly human fecundity [productivity] are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, it isn't true. Somewhere along the line - at about a billion years ago and maybe half that - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the earth.... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

David Graber, a research biologist at the National Park Service.

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace."

Adolph Hitler? No. Attorney General Janet the Butcher of Waco Reno, during a speech at a B'nai B'rith meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1991. For a better understanding of this:

And why does all of this remain hidden?

Hands of the Media; very well written.

And remember the following, every time you are tempted to "believe" anything told to you by the media (particularly about your "obligation" to vote!):

How the Controlled media Operates and for Whom

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." --David Rockefeller, in an address given to Catherine Graham, publisher of

The Washington Post and other media luminaries in attendance in Baden Baden, Germany at the June 1991 annual meeting of the world elite Bilderberg Group.


"One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, one of the media's most respected professionals, head of the New York Times, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.

Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."


?It is only when you truly begin to grasp the absolute control, the absolute evil, and the absolute filth of these people that you can begin to grasp what the future holds. It would be ludicrous to "assume" that people with the kind of money and power that these people have would simply talk of reducing populations, and not start taking active measures to see to it that their wishes come true.

?It is for this reason that all man’s governments fail, and are doomed to fail. It is the greed, the absolute lack of morals which concentrate at the top of any power pyramid and which assure that the only possible result is death and destruction.

?Now, for what you have read above, how does that compare with His Word? What, exactly, does it mean to be a "Christian?" Go to church on Sunday? Maybe play cards with a few of the church members once a week? Or even, maybe, read the Bible? Does it make any sense to read the Bible, if you do not take it seriously? There is a young man reading this Series and attending a Catholic college (strange combination). As he tells me, he is specifically told not to take the Bible literally. It is either His Word, and thus the most serious and literal subject in the Universe, or it is not. Which is it? And knowing this, then, what does it mean to be a Christian?

?Let me give you 5 rules to live by:

1. Love thy Creator with all of thy heart, and all of thy soul. This was given by the Christ as the first and greatest Commandment. Think what this means as regards His Word, and His Laws. As Jesus declared this the first and great Commandment, consider how we should lay aside all else to come under pre-eminence to His Word which is to conform to His Law. Now, as we begin to understand the purpose and intent of His Law, think of the benefits to us for doing this!

2. Love thy neighbor as thy self is the second commandment which, coupled with the first and great commandment encompasses all of the Law and the teachings of the prophets. To me this means that when you neglect the welfare of your neighbor, you have disadvantaged and actively damaged yourself. And from what we have read previously, we see how this hardness of heart and the greed of those who have seized control of the nations/tribes has brought the world to the precipice of destruction. One small transgression, left uncorrected, eventually becomes an avalanche of pain and suffering for everyone. Without active, ever-present love for our neighbor, such destruction will be the ultimate result of any man's attempt to govern either himself or other men, even under the letter of the Creator’s Laws.

3. ?Never damage anyone. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. For instance, withholding information can be as damaging as any deliberate act that you may envision. Or, failure to act when a neighbor is attacked or a false claim is made against him. All of these, and much more, are contained within these three words, for omission is often as damaging as commission. And the omission most commonly committed is the failure to help others. Would you like to see your problems go away, or, at least, become insignificant? Try helping others, and watch the change within yourself.

But, within this there also lurks the specter of damage that is much more direct, for money. Do you sell food? With Aspartame or fluoride or any of the hundreds of other so-called additives which we know to be damaging to people? Or chemicals? To farmers who are destroying their land to make the payments to the bankers? Or drugs? So-called legal drugs? This is where you will need to start making choices for the future; for your future. How can you maintain any activity you are engaged in for money which is damaging to another, whether they be knowing or not, in the face of the knowledge you now have? Now, you are beginning to arrive at the crossroads of what it means to be a Christian.

  1. Never tell a lie. Think this is easy? Try it for a single day. And this means not any of the little white lies to keep the spouse smiling, the children satisfied, or the boss happy. This means exactly what it says; never tell a lie. Again, there is more to this that the simple statement, for a lie can be of omission of facts or information, in other words, a lack of help, as much as the simple, deliberate misstatement of facts, however simple those facts may appear to you. Or, the selling of a product that you know to be harmful without informing those you are selling to. As another instance, how about all of those Xmas decorations you have stored? Going to get rid of them? Does this mean you are going to sell them, or destroy them? And, if you decide to sell them, are you going to inform those you sell to exactly why you are getting rid of the paganism in your home?

5. Never make a decision based simply on the money involved. There is no right way to do the wrong thing! Buy the best, most healthful food available, not the cheapest, on-sale product you can find. Do not "bank," or allow your labor to be fractionalized to damage others. Get out of debt, and do it now. Whatever this takes, including selling property, heirlooms, or learning to cancel the fraudulent debts created by the bankers. Whatever is necessary, do it, and learn to live free. And teach your children to do the same. "Owe no man any thing, but love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the Law" (Romans 13:8).

If you can learn to live with these five simple rules, you will be closer to Him than 99.9% of all people who have ever lived. It may not be enough, but it is a start. This is where I am started to have trouble when I first began learning, in taking His Word literally. Is it True? Then what part of it do I disregard, for my own purposes? And what this comes down to is that none of us, not me, not you, not anyone alive on this earth, is a Righteous man, without Him. Thank you, My Creator, my Lord Jesus Christ, for Grace.

For without faith it is all dead works. When I started to have trouble, in taking the letter of His Word literally, it was without the Light of the Spirit. For without the Spirit, without being born-again, none of us is, not me, not you, not anyone alive on this earth, can be a Righteous man. And Jesus' instruction is, "Be perfect (or mature and complete, lacking none of the virtues) as your Father in heaven is perfect". Thank you, My Creator, for Grace in making a way through the new birth which is the Spiritual regeneration and conception of the soul by faith without the lust of our physical birth into a fallen material world.

Concerning those who are born-again, Jesus said, "You are worthy" (Revelation 3:4-5). These words are as astounding as are the words in Romans 8:33b, "God says I am righteous." (Way Translation). There in the white Light of God's righteousness, hear the sweet voice of Jesus as He says, "These are Mine. They are righteous. They are worthy. They shall walk with Me in white."

How can one receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is to be born-again? Our life must manifest the PRESENT Truth. Only by becoming a written epistle of what Jesus is doing NOW on this earth can we come under the Blood and partake of Christ's righteousness (I John 1:7). And never forget that the present Truth of this earth includes everything that the Christ told us, to the smallest detail.


The following was just sent to me. If I had it earlier, I would have used in an early part of the Series. However, it may fit better here than anywhere, especially after the material presented in this part of The Series about the Talmud.

From ICE's web site: His comments:

At the above link is one of the more interesting and informative articles I have read in quite a while. I have seen bits of its information here and there, but the way this article puts it together is unique and (I think) worth sharing.

Nothing Succeeds but Success By Ralph (6/15/99)

In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest group still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don't talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken."

The protest obviously didn't happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here's what happened.

The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to given to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you've been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that's how the nobility made their wealth. No, they didn't push a plow. They had servants to do it.

The nobility wouldn't sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn't have moved out? Then you'd have a feel for what feudalism was all about.

A tenant wasn't a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate). That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax." The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."

The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they'd also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He'd learn a trade. He'd never need to become a tenant farmer. He'd keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen didn't need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They'd not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he'd have learned enough to practice the craft. That's when the contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it's "Jur-nee-man." He was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)."

He'd then go to work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that's quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he'd be recognized by the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21!

The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice's father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.

When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he'd only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They'd love to have you think that

the "G" in the middle of their logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")

Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn't the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they'd also been taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the priests) nobody else knew how to read.

These men were blown away when they read Jesus' command against swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a millennia they'd been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener.

Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there'd have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."

In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State- right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter.

It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.

Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say), "None, except

" Who do you think was (is) right?

The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they couldn't establish a church, which followed Jesus' words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded.

To show their absolute displeasure with those who'd kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one's hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn't miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. "Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he'd better "Quake before the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who'd been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn't just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.

But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can't go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction,' at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn't have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.

That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who'd thought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren't enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who'd then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They'd always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals?

They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There's an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone jumps.

Why do they jump? Simple. It's a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail (hey, there's a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.

Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that wasn't possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!

A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant's oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one's self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treason’s against the crown.

In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren't filled as you'd envision them. The men who'd refused the oaths weren't there. Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that.

There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood- in for the breadwinner.

Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings. That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter.

Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free.

That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they'd exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meeting they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them!

The followers of Jesus' words didn't bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they'd been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!

When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation.

That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it's the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can't be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it was not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he'd evidence in that omission that his oath was false.

To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths.

And that's still the situation. It's just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn't apportioned, and couldn't be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn't absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return."

Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn't be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn't apply. Make sense? Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs "standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which effects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn't have come up.

Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources with a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.

That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it's far easier to just reduce the benefits up- front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress.

There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That's a very strange concept at law. Actually, it's an impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision.

That was the 16th Amendment.

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn't say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That's absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers' incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don't have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That's logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you're saying, "Man, I'd never be so fool as to claim that." I'll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you'll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be under oath, right? Right. There's no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it's a FALSE oath.

Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you're under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.

You've read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can't even be placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.

The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn't you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There's a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of

impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That's why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren't under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You can't be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn't try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.

Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you'll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!

Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he didn't list it, then swore that the form was "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."

Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer's oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.

There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.

However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.

The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I'm) under penalties of perjury" and "I'm not a federal official or employee" would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of

public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can't have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren't federal persons. Unfortunately, they didn't tell the court that while under oath.

A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn't a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that's surely what he'd try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he's not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he's under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties.

It's still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn't changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It's still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don't immediately realize it. Yes, it's a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment.

You've wondered who are persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.

The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.

After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn't vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren't about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.

It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren't about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn't have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!

Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves.

The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.

Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It's all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.

You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction" means. You didn't WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn't realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn't give those words any thought.

What do you do when you discover you've made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been effected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes.

You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury of which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you've never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you'd ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you'll most certainly not make that mistake again! That'll be the end of any possibility that you'll ever be charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it's only as simple as it's supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren't under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can't be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.

It's a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you've never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.

Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all." That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who'd farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He'd "tear down the temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!

The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence, responding, "You have so said."

He didn't "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he'd said so. That's what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn't get jurisdiction.

Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He'd never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so.

The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn't kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How's that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn't do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly freeman. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.

In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it's a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.

Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don't name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus' followers, suits that they couldn't answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call "judgement proof."

They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn't a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!

It's rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus' commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It's all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can't abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We can't serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That's certain.

As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly can't envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I can't envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus' command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus' own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath.

The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.

Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bring complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can't, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won't see how it will function until it arrives.

Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It'll still work. It's the only thing that'll work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it'll set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you aren't the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there'd be no servants!

No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That's only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can run the same money game.

Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it'll scare the government silly.


?Of course, it must be just an accident that every government form you sign is under an oath. Do any of us really begin to understand freedom, Christianity, or knowledge? Or how knowledge shall set you free? Will we ever learn the why of His Law? Will we ever take the time to understand, to appreciate, and to accept, above all else, to accept His Word? Without the need for explanation? Or, at least, without the need for further explanation? His Word, which created us and brings all life to this earth?

Can you define Christianity? Well, perhaps a better question would be, can you define life? Can you define our purpose for being upon this earth? Can you define the Creator’s intent in the creation not only of this earth and of each of us, but in the creation of all? This is necessary if you are to define life. The purpose of a law is defined by the revealed intent of that law which can not be known until experience shows what the result of the law is. This can only be revealed by the actions of those who seek to enforce man’s law on other men. That is as far as man’s law is concerned. With the Creator, this is not necessary, because His Law is as unchanging and as endless, and as simple, as He is, and the Revealed Intent of His Law is to benefit His People. And His Law brings benefits only to those who would obey His Word.

This is why He gave us Scriptures, so we would know what His Intent is, and so we would understand what our purpose is. The real problem is relating Scripture to the life you live, because to do this, you must be in opposition to most everyone around you.

I am engaged in an ongoing series of messages with one man who keeps at me about what I "think" about god and life. One of the last things he told me is how great democracy is, because it was god’s intent that we be individuals, and it is only through democracy that each of us has a voice in how things are run. How do you answer something like that in two sentences or less? And the man has not started reading the series, and, from the tone of the messages, I suspect he will not. There is a tremendous resistance to finding out that we are not free agents, and we can never be free of His Law. The crimes that the priests of Baal (for definition, see anyone licensed by the "state" to preach some word or to "judge") have committed against His People can only be answered in blood. Unfortunately, the first blood shed will not be of the priests, but the last blood to be shed will be, and it will not be you and I who will do the shedding; it will be the Legions of the Creator.

?After you learn enough to begin to see what is actually going on, the question which arises is if there is, indeed another power at work. The answer, of course, is that there certainly is.


"If I Were the Devil..." by Paul Harvey

If I were the Prince of Darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I would have one-third of the real estate and four-fifths of the population, but I wouldn't be happy until I had the ripest apple on the tree. So I'd set about, however necessary, to take over the United States.

I'd subvert the churches first; I'd begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: "Do as you please."

To the youth I would whisper, "The Bible is a myth."

I would convince them that man made God instead of the other way around.

I would confide that what's bad is good and what's good is "square."

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you.

And to the old I would teach to pray after me: "Our Father, who art in Washington..."

And then I'd get organized; I'd educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that everything else would appear dull and uninteresting.

I'd threaten television with dirtier movies and vice versa.

I'd peddle narcotics to whom I could; I'd sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction; I'd tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil I'd soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I'd have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

If I were the Devil I'd encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions: let those run wild. Before you know it, you'd have to have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every school house door. Within a decade I'd have prisons overflowing.

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to do what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography.

I'd designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I'd get the preachers to say, "She's right." Thus, I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the school house, and then from the Houses of Congress.

And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys, girls, and church money.

If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give it to those who want it, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

What'll you bet that I couldn't get whole States to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

I would caution against extremes: in hard work, in patriotism, and in moral conduct.

I would convince the youth that marriage is old-fashioned, but swinging is more fun; that what you see on television is the way to be; and thus I could undress you in public and I could lure you into bed where there are diseases for which there is no cure.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

In other words, if I were the Devil, I'd just keep doing what he's doing.


?When you read the above, it is best to remember that evil does not exist in a vacuum. If there is not an organized system to protect evil, the people stamp it out, and this has been demonstrated throughout history. So, when evil becomes rampant, it is because those with the power to ensure the safety of evil do so.

?Evil never appears as a ravening beast with dripping claws and gore drenched fangs; it appears as goodness come to life, as beauty, as desirable, and as peace. If evil were to appear in any other mode, no one would buy into the lie. And where do the lies stop, or, do they ever stop?


I had ALSO independently concluded that the 1776 revolution was a 'show', an excuse to militarize the eastern U.S., to contain political enemies and destroy the Indian culture. The war of 1812 was a strange segue, dividing the U.S. in half, like recent Berlin, Vietnam in the 1960s, Korea, Cyprus.

That lawyers were 'esquires' serving their knights (esquires=squires). Knights are the military defenders of the royalty, and squires are their clerks and caretakers of their horses. To access the power of the knight you have to go through the squire, if you think that you need, for instance, 'justice' from the knight, with the squire acting as 'arbitrator'.

Here is an excerpt you might find useful from the book, "Colonial New York" by historian Michael Kammen:

Ultimately the likes of John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, and Robert R. Livingston came to regard separation as inevitable, and when that realization occurred, they determined to keep the new government under men of their own social class and political outlook. In order to do so, however, in order to form an alliance with radical artisans and yeoman farmers, they had to adopt the rhetoric of republican constitutionalism. The net effect was to keep New York the geographic fulcrum of the revolutionary movement, but also to ensure moderate and even conservative control of that revolution. These men swam with the tide in order to minimize society there. Here is Gouverneur Morris's well-known assessment of the situation (made on May 20, 1774), reviewing the decade of conflict:

The port of Boston has been shut up. These sheep, simple as they are, cannot be gulled as heretofore. In short, there is no ruling them, and now to leave the metaphor, the heads of the nobility grow dangerous to the gentry...

The spirit of the English constitution has yet a little influence left, and but a little. The remains of it, however, will give the wealthy people a superiority this time, but would they secure it they must banish all schoolmasters and confine all knowledge to themselves. This cannot be. The mob begin to think and reason. Poor reptiles! It is with them a vernal morning; they are struggling to cast off their winter's slough, they bask in the sunshine, and ere noon they will bite, depend upon it. The gentry begin to fear this. Their committee will be appointed, they will deceive the people and again forfeit a share of their confidence. And if these instances of what with one side is policy, with the other perfidy, shall continue to increase and become more frequent, farewell aristocracy. I see, and I see it with fear and trembling, that if the disputes with Great Britain continue, we shall be under the worst of all possible dominions; we shall be under the domination of a riotous mob. ===END OF EXCERPT===

Morris describes the people as struggling "sheep" and as "reptiles" that "will bite," is unconcerned with "nationality" or "independence." He is concerned with the maintenance of aristocracy, which is international.

Literacy was an exciting concept in these days and literacy was actually high, leading to independent newspapers, and... discontent. Morris considers abandoning public schools (as the English did in the 1660s).

It appears that aristocracy was preserved by a "revolutionary" war between the U.S. and Britain in 1776, preserving the aristocracy. Kammen went on to write that the British system was replaced by a system that was no less and probably more conservative than that endured under the British.


?One of the best series of books that I have ever read is Narratives of America by Allan W. Eckert. These are true books, and they show a side of early America you will never see in any other way. Eckert did the research for these books from diaries, letters and other original writings of the actual people who settled America and did the fighting on the frontier. An amazing story, and one which contradicts most everything taught in so-called history books. And, one which will make the above make much more sense. I would highly recommend that you read them, and require that all children in your family read them as well. This leads us to what happened to bring about the changes in America that were wanted, and the why of those changes as seen by the so-called elite.


Partial Time-Line

1762 - the order by King George (as a result of pressure by the bankers of London) that the Colonists must cease printing their own money, and that the "government" (meaning the Crown of England) would supply all needed money henceforth. The bankers made sure that they only supplied approximately 50% of the money in circulation prior to the king’s command.

1763 — Colonies go into a massive depression that lasts through the revolutionary war

1775 — April 19, The battles of Lexington and Concord

1775 — George Washington says, "It is not my intent nor my desire to be separated form the King."

July 4, 1776 — Declaration of Independence (George Washington did not sign it.)

1776 — 1783 — Revolutionary war

1776 — Adams said that the effect of the Declaration of Independence was to "restore the Sovereign." In this, he was referring to the Creator.

1777 — James Madison said that the new society wasn’t made to govern more effectively, but that each of us could "govern ourselves according to the ten commandments of God."

1781 — Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown — He tells George Washington that "victory" doesn’t matter. That in 200 years, the U. S. and Great Britain will be working together to form a "New World Order."

1781 — First Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation.

1782 — Treaty of 1782 Versailles - I recently was sent a copy of this treaty. I was shocked to learn that our Revolutionary war was financed by the King of France. From 1778 to 1782 he loaned us 18,000,000 livres (French) directly and indirectly through Holland in 1781 and another 5,000,000 florins (10 million livres). It is my understanding that these loans have never been paid. The men who fronted these loans, if you understand banking, are the same as the men who financed the King of England, through their branch banks in Paris, London or where ever. I should point out how this violates Proverbs 22:7, and makes the borrower slave to the lender. Remember, this money came from the same source that was financing the King of England in the Revolutionary War (probably, from the Vatican). This is important to understand when you finally begin to understand the Constitution.

1783 — Treaty of Paris, written to end hostilities and normalize relations with Great Britain. The King is called The King of Great Britain etc. and the Prince of the United States of America. In this Treaty, the King dictates the terms, because the borrower is the slave of the lender, and congress had given away the newly-won Sovereignty in 1782. There are a couple of other very interesting points about this treaty, including the fact that the King of England did not release any mineral rights to the states. This becomes very important in conjunction with the forthcoming Constitution.

1787 — Congress defaults on the loan, going bankrupt, and entering into engagements regarding that debt.

1787 — a group of un-elected representatives of the banks and courts met in secret to draft a document that could re-organize the government without sparking another revolution. They were not elected to represent their states, nor elected by the people to represent the people, however, the preamble to this bankruptcy reorganization document begins, "We the People of the United States......" where United States is the name of a corporation. There was no misrepresentation. It says clearly, to me, that this corporation is imposing the following constitution on the united States of America.

?The nature of the constitution being a bankruptcy reorganization document is plain to see in Article 6.

Clause 1 reaffirms the debt and "engagements entered into" and makes them binding on the new "government."

Clause 2 includes "all treaties made" [in the past tense] within the supreme law of the land, and binds all of the judges in all states to enforce it. This includes the bankruptcy payoff procedures included within the treaties and "engagements entered into". Since there is no exclusion included here, it would also include all of the original agreements and Charters for the colonies which became states.

Clause 3 stipulates the oath of office of all federal bureaucrats and elected officials and binds them to support the bankruptcy pay-off engagements and treaties. This is particularly relevant when you read the above section dealing with oaths and the intent behind them.

1789-1790 — The Constitution is sent to England for final approval. I have a copy of the 1788 version of the Constitution, and it is posted as well at: and at:

1789 — 1791 — Many papers were written about the purpose and effect of the constitution. These papers were called the Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist Papers. There were many more anti-federalist papers than pro-federalist.

1791 — Constitution is ratified after adding the "American Magna Carta" called the Bill of Rights, as the first ten Articles/amendments to the Constitution. One of the proposed amendments would have "put teeth into" the provision that no person could accept a title of nobility. This proposed amendment was rejected at this time. This was to lead to many troubles in the future for the young nation of America.

1791 — The first United States Bank is chartered, giving the "City" of London control of the wealth of America. It is the popular notion to blame Alexander [Levine] Hamilton for the U.S. Bank, but even the most radical on this issue admit that Hamilton could not have voted it through by himself. The U.S. Bank was obviously part of the "engagements entered into" and was a binding part of the adoption of the Constitution. Here it is very important to remember that it was George Washington, who wrote the Executive Orders which formed the original "federal zones" (overlying the original states with "federal zones") which permitted the bank to operate outside of the seat of the government and prey upon the people through fractional reserve banking.

1810 — Congress proposes a thirteenth amendment, to be called the "Titles of Nobility Amendment." This amendment would cause all "esquires" and "Your Honors" to cease to be citizens of the United States and incapable of holding any office or being paid with public money for doing a job.

1811 — Charter for First Bank of the United States ends and Congress refuses to renew the said charter.

1812 — WAR

?a) over the violation of the treaty agreements to have the First Bank of the United States as the defacto central bank and,

?b) destroy 38 years worth of public records, making the proof of the treaties and conspiracy unavailable to Americans. Also, making an attempt to destroy the evidence that the thirteenth amendment was about to be ratified.

1816 — Second Bank of the United States is chartered. That this bank was re-chartered after a war which was inconclusive was fought over the issue proves, at least to me, that the bank, as such, is an integral part of the apparatus known as the United States government.

1819 — Virginia ratifies the 13th amendment, revoking the citizenship of all lawyers, judges, and others with a title of Nobility. Virginia was the last state needed for this to occur as others had done so long before.

1825 — The State of Maine published an official version of the constitution, including the 13th amendment. [see this on-line at ]

This can be taken right through to the present, and explains the planned destruction of America for the purpose of re-installing foreign control through debt. All of these steps were taken as a direct result of the Declaration of Independence, and the temerity of the colonists to actually believe that Scripture was more important than the laws of the king!

Lincoln was killed by Rothschild’s assassin because Lincoln borrowed gold from the Romanovs instead of credit from Rothschild. The genocide against the Romanov family was because they dared to come between Rothschild (and the Vatican) and a piece of business (and refused to admit the bankers into Russia). The Federal Reserve System, all of the wars, depressions, and the rest is simply a result of the control of the credit machinery by immoral men who desire to control the world and who, through their lackeys in the BAR, write most all of the man made laws for every nation on earth. What is the lesson learned from all of this? -- "follow the money". Just because there is a little difference between a few million in the case of Nixon and a few Quadrillion in the case of Rothschild does not change the principle. 1. — Who gains? 2. — Who is in control? 3. — Who has the right to dictate terms? In all cases, it is the Rothschild family, their lackeys, and their backers, principally the King/Queen of England. And when you get to this point, it is vital to look at other evidence. For instance, in the Peace Treaty of 1783, the King of England is listed as a "Prince" and "Treasurer" of the Holy Roman Empire. Once you understand this, you come full circle back to the Vatican as well.

?The other point which is very important here is the concept of the King of England being descended from David, and this is why I suggested that you order the book "Mystery of the Ages" from the Philadelphia Church of God. This book explains to you the thinking, prevalent at that time and age, and still strongly adhered too here in this day and age that the King of England has a "divine" right to rule. Now, I have seen enough to know that this is probably not correct, particularly with the changes that came about with the invasion of England in 1066, and with the "black nobility" that seized the crown of England. But, it is not necessary for me to "believe" in this; what is necessary is for you to understand the why and the wherefore of statements such as George Washington when he stated that it was not his wish to be separated from the King. Sorry, I have no such desire to venerate any man, and his law/wishes, above Scripture.

But, there are many men who do, and they do this for their own benefit. Our studies should be making this very clear at this time. This is what these men profess to believe in; that the Lost Ten Tribes can be identified as least as far as the following. That the identity of the Tribe of Ephraim is primarily with Britain and Menasseh with the USA. By playing on this system of belief it has been easy for the Black Nobility to maintain and expand their power and stranglehold on the wealth of the people of the earth.

?It is not hard to refute much of the research that many different men have done to "prove" what they "believe" about British Israel; It is simple to refute British Israel nonsense and impossible to confirm it. And it is unnecessary. My answer to this is that it simply does not mean anything. I care not where the ten tribes are; I know they exist, and that their numbers are as grains of sand. However, many use this thinking process of identifying the ten tribes as a means to justify the "need" for a king, which is justifying the desire to disobey Him. I guess, among other things, this just goes to show that nothing really changes. Men still want to disobey Him, and someone will always find a way to work this to their advantage.

Actually, Brother Anthony (of Bible Believers) probably described this best: British Israelitism is a trick of the Devil. It is Cabalistic Judaism introduced by John Dee in the reign of Queen Elizabeth to set up an invisible Jewish Empire which is what has happened. This is very hard to dispute knowing what we do today! It is also interesting to look at the Philadelphia Church of God in light of the knowledge that we have gained. This organization promotes the so-called holocaust, says nothing about the banking system, and seems to have an unlimited amount of money to print fancy magazines and hundreds of books which they give away. Something should tell you, right there, that someone is financing this organization, and has for a long time, to serve their own ends. It would be foolish in the extreme to assume otherwise. And, knowing what this group has always promoted, it should not be hard to understand where this support must come from.


TODAY's COMMUNIQUE By Authority of Ephesians 5:11


When people think of England such terms as 'Great Britain,' 'The Queen,' 'The Crown,' 'Crown Colonies,' 'London,' 'The City of London,' and 'British Empire' come to mind and blend together into an indistinguishable blur.

They are generally looked upon as synonymous, as being representative of the same basic system. During the 1950s and 1960s the author lived in England (London for five years) without even beginning to realize the vast difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above terms.

When people hear of 'The Crown' they automatically think of the King or Queen; when they hear of 'London' or the 'The City' they instantly think of the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official residence.

To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define our terms:

When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world. The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.


The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much." It certainly is and certainly does!

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits "the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.

The reason should be clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject! The monarch always leads the way. The subject always stays a pace or two behind !

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'israeli wrote: "So you see... the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book: "The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget Director] is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget.

Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will [back-fire]... it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador complained to me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that.

"The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden... launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard" (p. 18).

History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the "invisible and inaudible" force centered in the City. The City calls the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.


From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth century the British Monarchs ruled supreme - their word was law. They truly were Sovereign in every sense of the word. As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in the City also grew - only at a faster pace. In 1694 the privately owned Bank of England (a central bank) was established to finance the profligate ways of William III. The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used William Paterson as a 'front.' The names of the founders have never been made public.

It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to dominate and control the affairs of Britain. Their influence and wealth grew in leaps and bounds in the century that followed. "The Illustrated Universal History," 1878, records that "Great Britain emerged from her long contest with France with increased power and national glory. Her Empire was greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased... But with all this national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in extreme wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the struggle of the previous twenty years.

It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control of the British economy, the Bank of England and the City - and, through their other branches, control of the other European nations. Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the far-flung reaches of the globe. Having been thrown out of the Western Hemisphere, Britain now concentrated on acquiring and developing additional possessions elsewhere.

During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all international trade was carried in British ships. Other shippers had to pay the Crown royalties or commissions for the 'privilege' of doing business on the high seas. During these years 'Britannia Ruled the Waves' through the domination of the most modern and powerful navy known up to that time.


To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire. All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign - i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the British Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks) were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them. They were privately owned and ruled by a private club in London, England known as the Crown. The Crown's representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and death over all the people under his jurisdiction. There were no courts and no method of appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the representatives of the Crown. Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown colony was subject to the Crown law. He couldn't appeal to British law as it didn't apply.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met with terrible retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown. The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the British aristocracy who were part of the 'City' machine accumulated vast fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and standing in British Society. Had the wealth been spread out among all the people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. [I am not suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the exploited should never have occurred to begin with - Ralph].

In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of the British people were barely making ends meet. Many were impoverished to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendor. The poor British peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action. Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M.P.," drew his readers' attention to the "total disregard or open contempt displayed by the aristocracy" towards the British people. He also asked, "What part do the colonial people play in the battle for democracy when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such rights" (pp. 114,115) [we all know the difference between democracy and republics I hope - Ralph]

David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the City and its total contempt for the "wretches" who were not part of the 'club.' In a 1910 speech he stated: "We do most of the business of the world. We carry more international trade - probably ten times more — than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that wretched foreigner. I'm taxing the foreigner for all I know... You've heard a good deal of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more... We get the foreigner in four ways by that. The first way we leave to Lord Rothschild..." ("Better Times", published 1910).

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that "...financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts... Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich... This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public interest to divulge'..." (E.C. Knuth, "Empire of 'The City'", p. 65). (Great book; I highly recommend it. — David)

All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and 84 of "Pan Germanism," written in 1913: "The London and Paris bankers [the international bankers] control the available resources of the world at any one moment, and can therefore practically permit or prevent the undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million dollars actual value..."

The international bankers "own probably the major part of the bonded indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in London or Paris. Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers. In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world's enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The world itself, in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still wealthier."

In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: "The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence. Obligated to show action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted and out-waited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served them well, have also profited well" ("Empire of 'The City,'" p. 65).

END of CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin

You have just completed reading the sixth chapter of ""DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin. If you would like to obtain a copy of this excellent book, send email to (This is another book I highly recommend. — David)

Here is the Table of Contents of this book:

1. A Voice From the Past

2. Early Americans Understood History

3. Insidious Forces At Work ?

4. Confessions of a Noted Historian

5. Rothschild Dynasty

6. The 'Crown' And 'The City'

7. Principles of Banking

8. World at War

9. Treachery at Versailles

10. Setting the Scene for World War II

11. 'Blood, Toil, Tear and Sweat'

12. 'Urban Renewal' Japanese Style

13. World War II - A Summary

14. 'Urban Renewal' British and American Style

15. The Science of Destruction

16. The Case of the Vanishing Dollar

17. The White House and the New World Order


Quotes Steeped in Reality:

Late August 1998, Bill Clinton, speaking in Ireland in response to a question as to what would he do if removed from office through impeachment:

".....You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions."

People like me who have done extensive research on the issue of a one world government, one world bank, one world religion and one world police force [UN Hessians], understand that the international bankers have been running the show for a couple hundred years. For a reaffirmation of this belief, I now quote Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Billy Clinton, January 7, 1999 issue of USA Today, Mr. Reich says this:

"The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress are irrelevant." Reich cut to the chase when he said that "America's domestic policy is now being run by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve and America's foreign policy is now being run by the International Monetary Fund [IMF]." And, "...when the president decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from Congress."


?I think these two quotes sum most of it up. Well, not quite:

"Some call it Communism. I call it Judaism" "Rabbi" Stephen S. Wise. This "Rabbi" is LYING as he should have said TALMUDISM NOT JUDAISM. (In other words, it comes from the Talmud, and not from the Torah, which is the first five books of the Bible. — David) To be more precise he should have said "Talmudism."

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."

--Henry Kissinger [found @ RocketMail's Daily Quote] (But first you have to understand how few things are un-Constitutional! — David)

-Tax Lovers Truth Letter- Why Wives Must Work

A valuable lesson learned in the Dale Carnegie sales training course is, "If you want to sell what Jim Jones buys, you have to see through Jim Jones eyes." Conversely, if you want to know just exactly what is being sold to you, you have to look through the salesman's eyes. How does a salesman sell something? How do they get someone to accept what is being offered? The prospective buyer must want what is being sold and this is accomplished by stressing the benefits to the buyer. If I sell a home to a prospective buyer with a steam heating system I do it by telling the buyer that they will save on heating bills, cleaning bills and medical bills. Medical bills? Yes! There isn't nearly as much germ carrying dust circulating as with forced air systems! Clever, huh?

So, how does one go about selling communism to the masses? You sell benefits! Social security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, price supports, welfare payments, aid to dependent children, farm subsidies, import quotas, etc., are all benefits "to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities" as defined by the German philosopher, Karl Marx.

The 8th plank of Marx's Manifesto calls for "equal liability of all to labor," in hopes that the feminine half of the world will get and fight their exploitation by the One World clique who need the women’s production to stall the ultimate collapse of the banker’s money system which is the result of implementing Marx's 5th plank. Let us define communism as total control over people with paper money, credit, fear, chemicals and propaganda. There can be no communism without paper money -- which is the interchangeable paper and copper clad tokens the masses have been conditioned to call "money" and accept for all their labor (Pay close attention here: you are being told exactly where Communism actually comes from, and why - David). There is no such thing as paper money (two words). Paper is too heavy to use as money... stop and think about this last sentence before proceeding.

It might take two truckloads of paper to equal the value of one Cadillac that could be bought with two hands full of gold coins. To control people with papermoney (one word) and credit, their use of these devices and their consumption in relation to their production must be ruthlessly regulated. The consequences were stated long ago by the British economist, John Maynard Keynes in Economic Consequences Of The Peace.

"...the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

How do those who get the money first for nothing get others to submit to regulation of their use of the money so that the fraud perpetrated with it remains concealed? Well, they don't call it "regulation" -- they call it "taxation." Taxation is authorized by our Constitution. When we used gold and/or silver coins, taxation was real because you actually transferred wealth to revenue agents. Your consumption was reduced by giving up consumable (not edible) production.

Now when the Federal Reserve says that their systems "works only with credit," a check transfers ownership of nothing, however your consumption is still reduced to whatever remaining credit in your account permits.

For this communistic system to work, the majority has to believe a massive amount of lies and believe so fervently that they will ridicule and jail those who do not. The most repeated lie is that the government spends money. Why should the government spend money when the majority of people will risk — or even give -- their lives for strips of paper that the government prints without restraint? Government spends nothing!

The very best thing government can print is a mere promise to pay money and they ceased doing that in 1963. They now print less than that with no promise to do anything. If government simply sent trucks around to haul off our production, the people would see this as theft and resist it. The government, however, leaves some strips of paper that authorizes their victims to go plunder their neighbors who, in turn, can take those strips of paper and plunder others who falsely believe they were lawfully paid! The theft just isn't seen as theft. It is called "free enterprise." What was it that P.T. Barnum said about


There are two primary classes of people on earth; those who get all money first for nothing and their slaves. Try to see through the eyes of those who get everything for nothing. If they did, in fact, take everything we have, they would see that we would understand that we are being robbed and we would revolt. Actually, we would revolt sometime before the point of total confiscation was reached. That saturation point could be held off in several ways.

If enough of their ethereal money was taxed away from us to prevent us from using it to buy our own production, revolutionary tendencies could be stemmed, but this has limitations. Another way is to get the laboring masses to produce more. Another way is to reduce the population: war, famine, disease, birth control, and fluoridated water.

As husbands voluntarily sign W4 authorizations for employers to reduce the numbers on their "pay" checks, the remaining numbers may not suffice to "buy" their necessities. As a result, wives go to work for more numbers and they, too, volunteer to sign W4 forms that cause employers to reduce their numbers -- which is another attack on their consumption.

The numbers subtracted for social security help reduce consumption of those who permit it. In spite of the lies indicating a relationship between money "paid into" social security and what is "paid out," there is nothing going to Washington as taxes or social security payments. The Fed admits this. With the Satanic system we have (just like Hitler's), there is no limit to the checks that can come from Washington with nothing going there.

"Collect the money, disperse the people; disperse the money, collect the people." --Ancient Chinese proverb. We have been collectivized and the people love it, thanks to their conditioning for it in the public fool system which filled Marx's 10th plank. What is really diabolical is that any person who effectively resists communism by refusing to waive his rights on 1040 confession forms will be ridiculed and jailed by the parents, siblings, and other survivors of the Americans who died in Asia "fighting Communism."

Income tax represents fulfillment of Marx's 2nd plank and we have been lead to believe that the 16th amendment authorizes a tax on incomes but it has been proven in 1985 that the 16th Amendment was never ratified!

Henry Kissinger was right! He stated, "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true." When a jury of hospital scrubwomen and deceived school teachers believe there is a law requiring you to waive your rights on 1040 forms, you will go to "jail" -- a very restful place with no bars, gates or walls to fear.

How many know that the 13th Amendment to our Constitution authorizes slavery? "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States except where a person is duly convicted of a crime." If government can get anyone duly convicted of baying at the moon; chasing unicorns; refusing to waive their rights on 1040 confession sheets or whatever, government is entitled to work them without pay (Pay close attention here and you will see the future of "prisons" in America — David)! But wait! Since the only function of negotiable notes is to get labor without payment, we are all slaves anyway! Putting a few of us concentration camps creates the illusion that those not in the camps are free! The illusion is intensified with the singing of the anthem of the United States of America that ends with, " of the free and the home of the brave." Star Spangled Slavery!!! Why doesn't our national anthem end with, "Oh, He died to make men holy; let us die to make men free"? The slaves would see that they are slaves and they might just die to get freedom.

You can sing the Star Spangled Banner until donkeys fly, but as long as you labor for strips of paper the first user got for nothing and, through the fear of being jailed, confess to how much paper you were robbed with, you are a slave to that first user. When most slaves in this country were black, they were controlled with fear of beatings. Now, when most slaves are white, all are controlled with fear of being jailed -- and the star studded press keeps reminding us of the riots, beatings and killings in jail. The whole point is that we have been communized and that production in relation to consumption must be ruthlessly regulated or the fraud upon the public perpetrated with bank credit will be revealed. As men submit voluntarily, as the IRS is fond of emphasizing, to regulation in the guise of taxation, they end up with not enough credit to live comfortably -- so their wives must labor (and perhaps forego having children -- see how population control takes many forms?) for more credit which they, too, voluntarily submit to the regulation of the Imaginary Revenue Scum.

There can be no revenue in a system that works us "only with credit!" Revenue is as imaginary as our money is! Revenue sharing is federal authorization for states and cities to rob their citizens! There are 15,000 commercial banks and not a one pays a dime in taxes! What would the pay with, a check? Who says the check is good, the bank?


?Have you ever wondered just exactly how completely your life was in the hands of others, and what it really meant to have "faith" in the system? Here you are getting a good glimpse, and it would not hurt to read the above at least twice. At least twice, and then remember that there is an alternative, but this requires that you transfer your "faith" from the system to Him.



by Winston Smith, Ph.D.

"Those unaware are unaware of being unaware"--Merrill Jenkins, Monetary Realist

Benjamin Disraeli said that the world is governed by far different personages than what is imagined by those nor behind the scenes. While you see individual people in each direction that you look, those "far different personages" who govern us see instead a HERD to be indoctrinated, intimidated, vaccinated, regulated and decimated as they see fit.

With no radios, no television, no printing presses, no universities and no public schools, mass mind control was an art in old testament times. There can be no other explanation for the great battles where tens of thousands died. It is not a lost art!

When credit exists only in the mind, and the Federal Reserve wrote that their system "works only with credit," they have to control the minds of the majority to work all of us with credit--and they do! Count those who believe government prints, collects, borrows and spends money and find not 1% control their own minds--the system works only with credit! One hundred percent of reports on government spending are lies. Until 1963, dollar bills were only promises to pay money. With the promises deleted, they are now less than that--and government does not spend dollar bills either. Credit is nothing. Government spends nothing.

The Federal Reserve is an illegitimate off-spring of Congress and their system is the same identical system that Hitler had. This system requires a propaganda machine that would have made Hitler blush! Hitler controlled his subjects with credit, fear, lies, illusions and amusements. The Fed controls their subjects with credit, fear, lies, illusions and amusements.

To muse is to think--amuse is no think. Amusements inhibit thinking. Ball players, actors, entertainers, journalists, novelists, cartoonists, pornographers, and others are rewarded with millions to keep us from thinking about this incredible system--and we reward them by purchasing tickets, tapes, etc.

God promised long life if we refrained from using unjust weights, DE.25:13-15 Credit is weightless. The dollar by law is a fixed weight of silver, see the Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 where Congress provided a penalty of death for officers of the mint who might participate in debasing our gold and silver coins. This harsh penalty was deemed necessary because those wise men knew that unrestrained counterfeiters could overthrow our Republic.

"The Federal Reserve is an omnipotent, benevolent counterfeiter"--wrote Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Samuelson in Economics, Fourth Edition.

When we have nothing in the bank but numbers, taxes are illusions that effectively regulate our consumption by reducing the credit we obtain consumables with. On 1040 Forms, we confess to how much we were robbed with credit though no lawyer or congressman can show us a law that requires us to file the forms! Congress cannot pass such a law that requires us to waive our rights.

"If governments should refrain from regulation...the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer," said economist, John Maynard Keynes in Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920).

It does not matter how long people live in a free society but when a few men get everything for nothing with credit and get their victims to ridicule and punish the few who protest, you have a very sophisticated slave system of jet propelled, air conditioned, steak eating slaves! Can there be masters without any slaves? "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all commerce and industry"---President James A. Garfield (He was shot!) On page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics, which is free from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the Fed say THEY control the volume of money, making THEM our absolute masters--if poor Garfield knew what he was talking about. In Keeping Our Money (their credit) Healthy, the New York Fed wrote that their unlimited counterfeit would keep its value, "If there were fewer people bidding against each other." Do dead people bid? Do live people bid credit that is taxed away from them? They never wrote about healthy people!

Where the Federal Reserve filled the 5th plank of Marx's Communist Manifesto, income tax filled his 2nd plank to regulate our consumption by regulating our use of counterfeit after we are robbed with it. All ten planks of the Communist Manifesto were enforced in America long before 50,000 + Americans died in Korea "fighting communism." It has been proven that the 16th Amendment Income Tax was never ratified. Verify thru attorneys, Lawrence Becraft of Huntsville Alabama or Andrew B. Spiegel of Chicago--a great many more know!

"History shows that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain control over governments by controlling the money and the issuance of it"--President James A. Madison.

Government can buy all drugs produced without raising taxes but this would end the drug war that justifies special new laws and the confiscation of property of rebels that Marx called for in his 4th plank! The drug war is a war against all Americans! You might find it is run by the same people who ran the opium war against China -- the British Government, the only enemy we've ever had.

If presidents, governors, congressmen, legislators, judges, teachers, preachers, policemen and many others take oaths under penalty of death to uphold a secret society based in London, are we not ruled by the leaders of that secret society? Does not London tell us daily what our money is worth?

So, what are the economic consequences if everyone lived 75 years in a welfare state where the majority are rewarded for not producing?

Pretend there were only 20 people on earth and the producers could produce six times what they consumed but only three were producing anything, there would be a problem that could be eliminated by eliminating two people or by increasing production. If these figures were each multiplied by 1 billion, would the problem disappear or would it be multiplied by 1 billion too? The answer is obvious.

In this ungodly, unconstitutional system, where the majority are rewarded for not producing so they will re-elect the rewarders, a ratio of production to consumption must be RUTHLESSLY REGULATED or consumption will exceed production and the system will collapse. There can be no better way to enhance the ratio of production to consumption that to eliminate non-productive consumers, babies and retirees. Colorado's Governor Lamm said, "Old people have the duty to die and get out of the way!" You know what the supreme cult (sick) sanctions for babies. Fluoridated water and suppression of a cancer cure help insure that we expire about the time we retire.

We do not know of a cure for cancer but we have an interesting tape of two radio talk shows on Royal Rife's suppressed research of the 1930s. Copy of the tape is offered for $5.00. Thirty-six page "Fool's Gold is Green" by Winston Smith is $4.00

"My people perish for lack of knowledge," Hosea 4:6. I wish you would read this ALOUD daily for 5 days to insure that you master the message. Please print it.


I have a big collection of clippings that should erase any doubt about this message.

I will send a few if you provide a postal address.


?To continue with the illusions they use to trap us:

This State operates under the Clear Water Doctrine. This is a Corporate capacity operating in commerce under the Law Merchant. (See previous information on Talmudism. — David)

We are born of man and woman. This State is an artificial entity. All Entities, which are Fictions, must be registered to do business within this artificial entity known as This State, which is a Corporate structure. The Registrant is the Resident Agent. The Resident Agent affixes a proper appellation on behalf of the Fiction. This Fiction’s name is documented in all capital letters. These documents are used in the transaction of public business.

Look over all the documents that you have "voluntarily" filed with this State for the transaction of public business. Each document establishes the presence of an Operation of Law, a statutory activity. This Statutory activity is a commercial revenue taxable activity, benefit, privilege, or franchise. This taxable activity is imposed as an excise, but could be a duty, or impost.

This artificial creation, the Fiction, can not function without a representative, a real live flesh and blood man. This representative is the one who signs any all documents used in the connection for the transaction of public business on behalf of the Artificial entity, the Fiction. This representative has "volunteered" to become the Resident Agent, and steps into the world of statutory Privileges.

The representative, this Registrant, has stepped outside the Protections and Liberty of the State Republic and has "volunteered" to enter the privileged world of the Social Democracy wherein this State acquires Legal title, and You, the former Man of liberty, are bequeathed Equitable Title under privileges secured by this State.

As this States secures Legal title to all property, you the Equitable possessor, must secure the permission of this State to use said property. This is where the Constructive Trust arises as an operation of law, requiring a Resident Agent to be accountable for the actions of the Trust.

Now the problem arises when the "Resident Agent" is unaware of this relationship, and saunters into a Legislative Tribunal and proceeds to Answer, Plead or Traverse. A legislative tribunal is any Agency created by the Public Trust under its constituted Statutory limitations to administer the transactions connected with Public Business.

The Constructive Trust is an operation of law. You the registrant, who "volunteered," becomes the Manager of this State’s Legal property, as the Resident Agent bequeathed with Equitable benefits.

Never answer, never plead, never traverse when coerced by a Legislative Tribunal. If you do, you loose. The Legislative Tribunal cares not what your defense would be, only that you make a defense such that the Agency can secure the Personam on behalf of the Rem

The Question then becomes how much the Libel will be, which is imposed upon Rem. This Libel imposed upon the Rem will be charged to the Resident Agent.


Simply put, you must present not only a non appearance but a non response.

Any written and/or oral position presented as a response, will be considered as a traverse, answer, or pleading in the connection with the transactions of Public Business by the Agency.

The best action for the support of a Non-Appearance, is statutory discovery, a non responsive action. This statutory discovery is not a response, but a question that must be answered by the Agency. Statutory discovery is found within this State’s administrative procedures act. Commonly known as a Public Information Act, or Freedom of Information Act request.


?Actually, it becomes much more important to learn the above, if you have already cleaned up many of the problems that arise by signing government forms. If you have a "birth certificate" registered with the "government," any arm of the government, then you have a problem, and "they" will probably do with you as they please. If not now, then at some point in time. The following was recently sent to me and confirms much of the information that I lost when my computer crashed. Pay very close attention.


I am going to give you some information in this post that is not for the general public, OK? You and I can discuss it between ourselves. A question: if one is born on America soil, is one not considered under the law of nations an American citizen? If so, how does one become a citizen of the United States, or the State, except through application and naturalization? Naturalization into citizenship of a country requires an individual to make application for the privilege. Did you make application? In the United States, application for the privilege of citizenship means the surrendering of your G-d given natural rights for the protection of civil rights, given to you and deemed a privilege from government. If U.S. citizenship was truly understood by the people, would they relinquish their unalienable rights of liberty and freedom for privilege from government, which restricts their liberty? Would a sane man trade freedom for government control of every aspect of his life under the guise of "responsibilities of citizenship."

We as individuals are naturalized into citizenship without knowingly making application at birth, through the birth certificate. We then lose out status as freeman by becoming surety for the international debt as we were pledged in 1933 by the Governors of every state, under the declaration of Bankruptcy by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Registration of the Birth Certificate identifies the property registered, and once registered, becomes a Warehouse Receipt, or Preferred Stock Item, for which a Treasury Account is opened (file number on your birth certificate). Government then borrows money into circulation from the Federal Reserve Bank at face value (quid pro quo) for Bonds and T Bills which it prints, on the full faith and credit (pledge) of the Preferred Stock (us) in the futures market economy. This results in perpetual debt bondage of the pledgee and the pledgee's posterity; i.e., perpetual slavery.

Commercial crimes, or "statutory offences" (public policy) are designed as "claims" against the owner of the property, which, via the pledge, the presumption arises that "title" of the thing pledged passes to the receiver via the declared bankruptcy. As example, you receive a "Notice of Title" to your vehicle after purchase from the Secretary of State of the state you live in. You don't own it, and as the surety, you never will. However, as the surety you now fall under the jurisdiction of "public policy" or "statutory offences" of the state and are made liable for all statutory crimes in regard to the use of a vehicle, or any other property one believes he or she owns. Under public policy legislation the government can take your car, your land, your home, your DNA, and your children. Once a birth certificate is registered for your child, he/she becomes a valuable commodity on the international futures market. It is a well known maxim of that law that whoever has the power to tax and the power to take has "ownership."

So since everything we think we own can be taxed or taken by the government, all our wealth, present and future, is in the hands of the Treasurer of the United States, as the receiver of bankruptcy for the U.S.

Since we are functioning in a commercial jurisdiction, all law becomes enforceable through mutual contractual agreement, although in this country the contracts are unilateral, unconscionable, of adhesion, and concealed. Now we know the enemy. I think a crash course on UCC is more important than common law & the constitution. We all know what's been done to us, and is ongoing, as unconstitutional. BUT… we haven't been able to successfully defend, even though we think we have all the answers. I think we've been asking all the wrong questions, which the courts love. We actually go into the courts and try to argue, by which we are submitting to their jurisdiction. They play with us, agree with us, and then either lock us up or take everything we own and, sometimes they do both. We're getting close, and the government knows it. I think we may have only a few more nuts to crack, and then we will be there. The secret lies in citizenship and the tie in with the birth certificate, cestui que trust, and SS#. These are the essential elements that keep us in perpetual debt. Citizenship is the nexus to the debt. Debt is the nexus to the control through contracts. Contracts are the nexus to licenses and taxation. Licenses and taxation are the nexus to total control. Permission, or I should say, exemption from permission, is needed to function outside the contractual state. However, everything I have read about unilateral contracts leads me to believe we can beat the system. Our mantra in court should be "I don't know what you are talking about. This doesn't apply to me. If I am being held to a contract, bring it forth so that I may see where I signed it. You should ask the judge if your contract is with him, or if he personally has a claim against you. If he answers "NO", then you ask him if you can now go home. Just as the only person that can change the rules is the person who has delegated authority to do so, I believe the only person who can haul your ass into court for contract violations is the person who also signed the contract you allegedly violated. The courts are acting as a third party, and as such, have no authority to interfere unless all signing parties are present in a contract dispute and approach the court to make a decision as to the facts of the contract. The only law that applies in court today is contract law, sometimes admiralty. Most actions are against our property, so the action is in "rem," admiralty.

Contract law states that both parties must be aware of the contract. You can contract all your liberty and freedom away if you want to, but you must be aware of the contract and have signed it. The court can't be assigned the authority of the original contractor unless you are made aware of it and agree... now you know why making an appearance in a court is assumed to be your agreement to allow the court to assume authority. Of course it will always rule in it's own best interests.

Result… No Justice. Of course this is just an overview of what I believe is the situation. My research of supreme court cases seems to support this theory. Now to address the question of the bid value of the birth certificate, Merrill Lynch is reported to have published a report stating this fact. This information came to me from a third party. I always do my own research to prove or disprove someone else's info. To date I haven't been able to locate any information in this regard. Perhaps you have a contact who could secure this report for you, which of course, I hope you would share with me.


?This is the first hook that the bankers put into our children, and then they use these instruments to fractionalize more credit. More and more and more is all these people understand. There can never be enough honest ways to make a profit for these men, so every possible device is used to create the more they desire. As a system grinds on, you can easily see why it is not self supporting, and why every such system is doomed to destruction of itself. The only system which can exist for any length of time is the system designed for us by the Creator, and detailed in Scripture. And the reason God’s system can exist in perpetuity is that God is the owner of all land (the means of production in olden times and still the only means by which wealth is created as opposed to the illusion of credit). His people held it in trust for future generations. They could not sell it even to meet a debt for in the Year of Jubilee it must be returned, and all debts were cancelled. Usury, the basis of all modern banking, was forbidden. And the reason that this system can and will exist for long periods of time is that it is based on His Law, and this is the only Law which guarantees that no man is a victim in the schemes of the parasites. More on this is Part XX.


Impact: Vital Articles on Science/Creation

Impact # 303

Do Laws and Standards Evolve? Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.*

* Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., is an attorney and adjunct professor of apologetics at ICR.

Every intellectual and cultural battle is won or lost in the assumptions. He who defines, wins. The controversy between evolution and Biblical creation is about much more than fossils and ape men. It concerns the basic presuppositions by which our society will answer questions concerning life, law, and human relationships. Most importantly, it is a battle over lordship: Who is Lord … God or man?

For much of this century, Darwinian evolution has appeared victorious in the cultural battle. The theory of evolution has done far more than just reshape America's biology textbooks, it redefined the nature of the debate. Darwin offered modern man the same question which the serpent posed to Eve: "Hath God said?" thereby declaring man the ultimate source of authority.

The results have been devastating: Our society has declined to the point where Christianity is excluded from the public arena, parents may kill their own nine-month baby in the womb, and the lawfulness of homosexual marriage is openly debated by legislators. Many Christians disapprove, but when challenged to defend their position, are quickly silenced by protests that morality is not the proper domain of politics.

The way in which a society addresses such controversies is directly related to how it answers the following three foundational questions:

(1) Can man legislate morality?

(2) If so, by what standard should man legislate? and,

(3) Does this standard evolve?

The answer to each of these questions is determined by one’s approach to origins. By convincing large numbers of Christians that law is morally neutral, that human reason is the arbiter of truth, and that standards change as cultures mature, Darwinism has neutralized the restraining influence of Biblical Christianity on culture. While many Christians resist formal acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis, they have implicitly accepted the assumptions on which the theory rests.

Can man legislate morality? It is impossible to pass a law which is free from moral implications. The real question is not whether man can legislate morality, but which system of morality will be legislated. All laws are either explicitly moral or procedural to a moral concept. Even laws requiring traffic lights are an imposition of morality. The purpose of traffic lights is to stop people from having accidents, thus protecting property and preserving life. This is a moral concept which presupposes that;

(a) order is good and chaos bad,

(b) property rights should be honored, and

(c) life preserved.

Each of these principles is rooted in the Genesis account of origins:

(a) God the Creator, who declared His work "very good" (Genesis 1:31),

is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33);

(b) He commanded man to bring order to Creation by taking dominion over the earth, thus laying the foundation far property rights (Genesis 1:18); and

(c) He established the sanctity of life as the first principle of lawful government (Genesis 9:5,6).

These are the unspoken moral assumptions behind a traffic light.

Of course, law can neither save nor sanctify. God intends civil law to be a restraint against evil (I would certainly dispute this point. In referring to this, remember the curse that God placed on man when the Israelites demanded a King. — David), not a source of spiritual deliverance (Romans 13:4). Ironically, it is the evolutionary humanist who argues for salvation by legislation. Because man's problems are believed to be environmental, not sin-related, the evolutionist hopes to solve them through government programs and better education. In such a world, the State, not Jesus Christ, is honored as the true redeemer.

By what standard should man legislate? There are only two standards by which man can govern: the law of God, or the will of man. America's Founding Fathers understood that there is no middle ground. They declared their allegiance to the Creator and acknowledged that He had established a law-order with transcendent moral principles:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

By so stating, the Declaration of Independence drew from and incorporated into the charter of our nation a one-thousand year western legal tradition firmly rooted in the Genesis account of origins. For decades American law students learned the Genesis foundation for law from Sir William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England was their primary text. The Commentaries were not merely an approach to the study of law, they were the law.

1. The Blackstone Tradition

Blackstone predicated his entire analysis of law on the superiority of special revelation (the Bible) over general revelation (nature), on the reality of a literal twenty-four hour, six-day creation week, on a literal Adam and a literal Fall resulting in the corruption of human reason, and on the Dominion Mandate of Genesis as the foundation for the law of property ownership. Blackstone affirmed the authority of Scripture as the only legitimate foundation for society, and he specifically refuted the idea that laws could evolve as societies change.

He wrote:

Men do not make laws, they do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.... The doctrines thus delivered we call revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in holy scriptures.... And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be easy.... But every man now finds the contrary in his experience, that his reason is corrupt....

The foundational common law doctrines pertaining to the laws of contracts, property, torts (personal injury), and evidence find their origin in the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis. Genesis reveals the authority of God as lawgiver (Genesis 2:17); the meaning of justice and mercy (Genesis 3:15); the significance of marriage as the first institution (Genesis 2:21-24); the necessity of atonement and restitution for crime (Genesis 2:17; 3:17; 9:6); the nature and meaning of covenants (Genesis 9:12,13; 15:18); the jurisdiction of the state to execute murderers (Genesis 9:6); the jurisdiction of the family to raise children (Genesis 1:28; Malachi 2:15); the jurisdiction of fathers to direct families (Genesis 3:16; 18:19); the jurisdiction of man over the environment (Genesis 1:31); etc.

Despite the enormous influence of Blackstone's distinctively creationist approach to law, his writings have been relegated to obscurity in most law schools. In the July 1978 edition of the American Bar Association Journal, noted historian, Henry Steele Commager, summarized what happened: "[They] substituted the operations of the law of evolution for the laws of God."

2. The "Scientific" Approach to Law

There proceeded during the 19th Century, under the influence of the evolutionary concept, a thoroughgoing transformation of older studies like History, Law, and Political Economy; and the creation of new ones like Anthropology, Social Psychology, Comparative Religion, Criminology, Social Geography.... (Julian Huxley)

A millennium of Christian legal tradition came to an end in 1870. In that year, Christopher Columbus Langdell, newly appointed Dean of Harvard Law School, began a revolutionary approach to legal education which specifically discarded the Genesis foundation of law in favor of a philosophy rooted in Darwinism.

Langdell abandoned the historic method of teaching Christian principles of the common law in favor of the new "case-book method" which directed the student to discover law through the constantly evolving opinion of judges. Langdell described the relationship between science, law, and uniformitarianism in the preface to the first "case-book" ever published, his Cases on Contracts:

Law, considered as a science,... has arrived at its present state by slow degrees; in other words, it is a growth, extending in many cases through centuries. This growth is to be traced in the main through a series of cases; and much the shortest and best, if not the only way of mastering the doctrine effectively is by studying the cases in which it is embodied.

Legal scholar, Herb Titus, explained that Langdell "believed that the cases were the 'original sources' of legal doctrines and principles: the case gave birth to a rule of law, which slowly evolved through a series of cases into a full-fledged legal principle." Langdell began a century-long tradition whereby judges no longer viewed themselves bound to interpret pre-existing laws. They may now decide what laws should be.

Thus, Langdell answered the question, "By what standard should man legislate?" by pointing to the autonomous reason of man. (Does anyone reading this "believe" that Langdell, of his own volition, changed the "legal" system? Or was he just the mouth piece to finish what the lawyers had started? Does anyone see the close parallels with the advent of the BAR into America here? Remember, it is an "esquire" writing this paper. That is why it is here! — David)

Do laws evolve? The Langdellian legal revolution proved to be the single greatest influence on American law since the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries in 1765. In the years that followed, the introduction of the casebook method, scholars and jurists would continue to integrate evolutionism into the American legal system. While Langdell's primary influence had been to create a distinctively Darwinian methodology of legal education, the job of reshaping the conclusions of law in the image of evolutionary humanism would be left to his student progeny and intellectual successors.

The single most influential jurist of the Twentieth Century was United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. His massive treatise, The Common Law, supplanted Blackstone's Commentaries as the premier text for law students. Holmes taught "the life of the law has not been logic, but experience," and argued that it was the responsibility of courts to direct the evolution of law. Because right and wrong do not exist in any absolute sense, judges must determine which standards are most appropriate at a given point in the evolution of a society.

For three decades, Holmes brought his distinctively Darwinian bias to the Court. He spoke candidly: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand."

A consistent evolutionist, Holmes declared that "the sacredness of human life is a purely municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction." He authored the landmark decision in Buck v. Bell upholding a Virginia eugenics law mandating the involuntary sterilization of people the State deemed undesirable.

It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

Holmes and his contemporaries laid the foundation for legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, the legalization of homosexuality, and the rejection of the Framers' vision for Constitutional interpretation. Today, most courts have embraced an evolving standard for Constitutional interpretation, rejecting the notion that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the meanings intended by the Framers.

Conclusion: For evil to triumph in the cultural battle, it is not necessary that the theory of evolution gain wide-spread acceptance, only that the assumptions behind the theory do. The battle between evolution and creation is comprehensive because it is a battle over lordship. The source of law will always be the true Lord of that civilization. Standards will never evolve because the Lawgiver never changes (Hebrews 13:18). His moral law for man can never change because it reflects the immutable character of a righteous, holy God. This standard was established from the beginning, is revealed in Scripture, and is eternally binding on civilizations. While specific application of these principles may change from culture to culture, the principles do not. Consequently, debates pertaining to separation of morality and politics, children's rights, overpopulation, environmentalism, homosexual marriage, education, capital punishment, and the purpose of the criminal justice system can only be properly addressed by building upon a Genesis foundation. Only armed with this foundation can Christians speak authoritatively to the defining issues of our day.

Single Copies 10 cents 1998 All Rights Reserved

Order From: Institute for Creation Research

Post Office Box 2667

El Cajon, California (92021)

(619) 448-0900 Voice and Message (619) 448-3469 fax

(800) 628-7640 toll free orders only line


?This piece is here for a couple of specific reasons. First, the Institute of Creation Research has some excellent books to show rather conclusively that evolution can not occur as the basis for life on this earth. The chemical processes needed to bring about life simply can not occur together without outside intervention as they are an impossibility when they occur together.

?On the other hand, the research done by the institute is not based on looking for the Truth; it is based solely on justifying a preconceived set of opinions. When this has been pointed out to the people at the institute, they are not receptive to hearing about it! For instance, they are convinced that the earth was literally created in seven days approximately six thousand years ago. Whatever other words from the Bible which indicate other dates and times prior to Adam, are not acceptable. So, you will get a very one-sided view from these people. Now, if they are absolutely correct, this is not bad. However, I have seen enough to be sure that they are not correct in every detail that they espouse, and the above is very indicative of that.

?The real lesson in the above is the absolute conviction of this "esquire" that man has the right to make/write law. In no respect does he give the Law of the Creator the highest priority, for man must interpret and write law "based on Genesis" as "God intends the civil law" to be, obviously, written by man. I wonder what he would think of the definition of "civil law" that we were introduced to by way of the Talmud?

Does He intend man to write "civil Law?" Or is this precisely what brought on the curse in scripture when the Israelites demanded a king? To be like onto other nations, and thus rejected their True King? Is Scripture correct, or not? And, what interpretation of Scripture is needed? Other than Scripture itself? What does it mean when it says do not add to His Word? When we attempt to write law in our own right, is this not directly adding to His Word, and altering His Law? I think these are the subjects which are important to us, as a people, and as a natural man or woman, for these are the things which define who our Lawgiver is, and to Whom we owe and pledge allegiance and obedience. I think it is worth thinking on, and discussing, for the future of America and of our children.

How you think of this, and how you approach this, also has a large bearing on your health, and the health of everyone around you. The ability of man to write law simply means the right of some man to obligate you to his profit.



For the past 25 years, tens of millions of Americans in hundreds of cities and towns have been drinking tap water that is contaminated with low levels of insecticides, weed killers, and artificial fertilizer. They not only drink it, they also bathe and shower in it, thus inhaling small quantities of farm chemicals and absorbing them through the skin. Naturally, the problem is at its worst in agricultural areas of the country. The most common contaminants are carbamate insecticides (aldicarb and others), the triazine herbicides (atrazine and others) and nitrate nitrogen.[1] For years government scientists have tested each of these chemicals individually at low levels in laboratory animals -- searching mainly for signs of cancer -- and have declared each of them an "acceptable risk" at the levels typically found in groundwater.

Now a group of biologists and medical researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, led by Warren P. Porter, has completed a 5-year experiment putting mixtures of low levels of these chemicals into the drinking water of male mice and carefully measuring the results. They reported recently that combinations of these chemicals -- at levels similar to those found in the groundwater of agricultural areas of the U.S. -- have measurable detrimental effects on the nervous, immune and endocrine (hormone) systems.[2] Furthermore, they say their research has direct implications for humans.

Dr. Porter and his colleagues point out that the nervous system, the immune system, and the endocrine (hormone) system are all closely related and in constant communication with each other. If any one of the three systems is damaged or degraded the other two may be adversely affected. The Wisconsin researchers therefore designed their experiments to examine the effects of agricultural chemicals on each of the three systems

simultaneously. To assess immune system function, they measured the ability of mice to make antibodies in response to foreign proteins. To assess endocrine system function, they measured thyroid hormone levels in the blood. And to assess nervous system function they measured aggressive behavior in the presence of intruder mice introduced into the cages. They also looked for effects on growth by measuring total body weight and the weight of each animal's spleen.

The experiments were replicated many times, to make sure the results were reproducible. They found effects on the endocrine system (thyroid hormone levels) and the immune system, and reduced body weight, from mixtures of low levels of aldicarb & nitrate, atrazine & nitrate, and atrazine, aldicarb & nitrate together. They observed increased aggression from exposure to atrazine & nitrate, and from atrazine, aldicarb & nitrate together.

The Wisconsin research team wrote, "Of particular signficance in the collective work of Boyd and others,[3] Porter and others,[4] and our current study[2] is that THYROID HORMONE CONCENTRATION CHANGE was consistently a response due to mixtures, but NOT usually to individual chemicals." [Emphasis in the original]. In the five-year experiment, thyroid hormone levels rose or fell depending upon the mixture of farm chemicals put into the drinking water. Dr. Porter and his colleagues present evidence from other studies showing that numerous farm chemicals can affect the thyroid hormone levels of wildlife and humans. PCBs and dioxins can have similar effects, they note. Proper levels of thyroid hormone are essential for brain development of humans prior to birth. Some, though not all, studies have shown that attention deficit and/or hyperactivity disorders in children are linked to changes in the levels of thyroid hormone in the blood. Children with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) have abnormal thyroid levels. Furthermore, irritability and aggressive behavior are linked to thyroid hormone levels.

Interviewed recently by Keith Hamm of the SANTA BARBARA [CAL.] INDEPENDENT,[5] Dr. Porter explained, "Earlier work had shown that thyroid hormone typically changed when exposure to these pesticides occurred. Thyroid hormone not only affects and controls your metabolic rate, that is, how fast you burn food, it also controls your irritability level. For example, Type A personalities are more assertive, more aggressive, more hyper. These people tend to have higher levels of thyroid hormone. Type B personalities--people that are really laid back, really take things very easily--have lower levels of thyroid hormone. We expected that changes in thyroid [would] change irritability levels. This was a concern because there was information that kids are getting more hyper and [that their] learning abilities are going down," Dr. Porter said. A recent study of 4 and 5 year-old children in Mexico specifically noted a decrease in mental ability and an increase in aggressive behavior among children exposed to pesticides.[6] Elizabeth A. Guillette and colleagues studied two groups of Yaqui Indian children living in the Yaqui Valley in northern Sonora, Mexico. One group of children lives in the lowlands dominated by pesticide-intensive agriculture (45 or more sprayings each year) and the other group lives in the nearby upland foothills where their parents make a living by ranching without the use of pesticides. The pesticide-exposed children had far less physical endurance in a test to see how long they could keep jumping up and down; they had inferior hand-eye coordination; and they could not draw a simple stick figure of a human being, which the upland children could readily do. Notably, in the Guillette study we find this description of the behavior of pesticide-exposed children: "Some valley children were observed hitting their siblings when they passed by, and they became easily upset or angry with a minor corrective comment by a parent. These aggressive behaviors were not noted in the [pesticide-free] foothills [children]." The human body can defend itself against poisons to some degree, but Dr. Porter and his colleagues describe ways in which low-level mixtures of pesticides and fertilizer might get past the body's defenses:

The body is prepared to protect itself against poisons taken by mouth. The liver begins to produce enzymes that try to break down fat-soluble chemicals. However, if a poison enters through the lungs or the skin, the body does not offer the same kind of defenses. Furthermore, the body's ability to put up defenses may be compromised by taking certain medications (e.g., antibiotics), or by receiving "pulses" of toxins rather than a steady dose.

Receiving "pulses" of poisons would be normal in the case of agricultural poisons which are sprayed onto crops only at certain times of the year. During those periods, people living near sprayed fields might get a sudden dose of poison via their lungs, their skin and their drinking water. Dr. Porter describes such a situation this way:

"Imagine [that] you're standing in a boxing ring and a boxer jumps in with you, and he walks toward you smiling with his hand outstretched. And you reach out to shake his hand and he smacks you in the stomach as hard as he can. And when you bring your arms up to defend yourself, he backs away. Finally you get tired of holding your defenses up and you drop them and he rushes in and smacks you again. That's the physical equivalent to a 'pulse dose,' which is normally what we tend to get exposed to. "The defenses we have take a while to induce, just like it takes a while to bring your arms up. It takes anywhere from a half a day to five days to induce those [defenses] to appropriate levels. If you're in a particular stage of your hormone cycle or you're taking some antibiotics, it can compromise your ability to defend yourself even if you did have enough time to induce your defenses. If you've got pulse doses coming in under your defenses or coming in faster than you can bring your defenses up then you've got a situation where you're totally vulnerable. "If you've got a pregnant mom, for example, in day 20 when the fetus's neural tube is closing and she gets an exposure, she hasn't had enough time to induce her defenses. Her thyroid level goes up or goes down, the hormone crosses the placenta and can permanently alter the developmental pattern of the fetus's brain. And then the pulse dose is gone, you have no detection, mom doesn't even know she's pregnant, and you may have an offspring that is neurologically compromised and wonder, 'How did this happen?'"

In the interview with Keith Hamm, Dr. Porter expressed concern for the overall effect of pesticides on the nation's children: Hamm: "Are pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer used more or less these days than fifty years ago and have the toxicities changed?"

Porter: "The usage has continued to climb. There's an enormous amount of these [chemicals being used] right now. There was a recent study that examined the urine of people across the country, [asking] if people are being exposed. On average, anywhere from five to seven compounds were being excreted. There's a great deal of expo- sure to the general populace. "And yes, the toxicities have definitely changed. [Some toxicities are now measured] in the parts-per-trillion range. I would point out that fetuses are sensitive to chemicals in the parts per quadrillion range."

Hamm: "I would assume that most people in this country are eating conventionally grown food. If that's the case, wouldn't the problems be more apparent? Why are there not more hyperaggressive dim-witted people with poor immune systems?"

Porter: "If we really looked carefully at what's been happening in this county, you might find exactly that happening."

Because of recent violence in small cities and towns (such as Littleton, Colorado, Laramie, Wyoming, and Jasper, Texas), this is a time when Americans are searching for the causes of violence in their society. Some are blaming a decline in religious upbringing. Others are blaming households with the parents working and no one minding the kids. Some say the cause is violent movies, violent TV and extremist internet sites, combined with the ready availability of cheap guns. Still others point to a government that has often sanctioned the violence of "gunboat diplomacy" to open foreign markets for U.S. corporations. No one seems to be asking whether pesticides, fertilizers and toxic metals [see REHW #529, #551] are affecting our young people's mental capacity, emotional balance, and social adjustment. From the work of Warren Porter, Elizabeth Guillette and others, it is apparent that these are valid questions. --Peter Montague

(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)


[1] Jack E. Barbash and Elizabeth A. Resek, PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER (Chelsea, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press, 1996); Richard Wiles and others, TAP WATER BLUES (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Working Group, 1994); Brian A. Cohen and Richard Wiles, TOUGH TO SWALLOW (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Working Group, 1997); Environmental Working Group, POURING IT ON; NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF DRINKING WATER (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Working Group, 1996). See And: Gina M. Solomon and Lawrie Mott, TROUBLE ON THE FARM; GROWING UP WITH PESTICIDES IN AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES (New York: Natural Resources Defense Council, October, 1998).

[2] Warren P. Porter, James W. Jaeger and Ian H. Carlson, "Endocrine, immune and behavioral effects of aldicarb (carbamate), atrazine (triazine) and nitrate (fertilizer) mixtures at groundwater concentrations," TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH Vol. 15, Nos. 1 and 2 (1999), pgs. 133-150.

[3] C.A. Boyd, M.H. Weiler and W.P. Porter, "Behavioral and neurochemical changes associated with chronic exposure to low-level concentration of pesticide mixtures," JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 30, No. 3 (July 1990), pgs. 209-221.

[4] W.P. Porter and others, "Groundwater pesticides: interactive effects of low concentrations of carbamates aldicarb and methamyl and the triazine metribuzin on thyroxine and somatotropin levels in white rats," JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 40, No. 1 (September 1993), pgs. 15-34. And see: W.P. Porter and others, "Toxicant-disease-environment interactions associated with suppression of immune system, growth, and reproduction," SCIENCE Vol. 224, No. 4652 (June 1, 1984), pgs. 1014-1017.

[5] Keith Hamm, "What's In the Mix?" SANTA BARBARA [CALIFORNIA] INDEPENDENT April 15, 1999, pg. 21 and following pages. See Thanks to George Rauh for alerting us to this interview.

[6] Elizabeth A. Guillette and others, "An Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed to Pesticides in Mexico," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 106, No. 6 (June 1998), pgs. 347-353. Descriptor terms: violence; hormones; thyroid hormone; development; aggression; chemicals and behavior; behavior and chemicals; delinquency; studies; mexico; warren p. porter; elizabeth guillette; adhd; attention disorders; hyperactivity; learning disabilities; brain development; emotional stability;


?The lesson to be learned above is what happens when you ignore His Law, and ground is not properly cared for and rested as we are commanded to do. Do you think the above story is going to be listened to in any significant manner, since it would interfere with bank profits if much of what is going on was altered? Of course not.

?Things will change in America when you, and you, and I, decide they will change and make those changes on a personal basis. This does not mean waiting for anyone else; this means starting NOW! Or, for some reason, do you think that the above does not apply to you? That it is not and will not have any affect on you? I will repeat what I have said before; you can not be a Christian and live in a city, nor send your children to the indoctrination clinics of the "government," nor buy your food in a "supermarket." These are the changes you are facing. These are the choices you are facing. These, my friends, are what you must decide to do, or not to do. You have already read enough to understand that the choice is solely yours, and yours alone.


NATIONAL ISSUE Investors Business Daily - 3/29/99


Are Stable Families Source Of High Test Scores? By Aaron Steelman

How many families educate their children at home? Estimates vary wildly. Some put the number of home-schooled children in the U.S. at about 750,000. Other say it's much higher - closer to 2 million.

One thing's for sure: The home-schooling movement has exploded over the last 20 years. "There were probably fewer than 10,000 home-schooled children in 1980," said Michael Farris, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association in Purcellville, Va.

Still, many questions remain. Who educates their kids at home? How are those students doing academically? Are they well-adjusted socially? (Who cares!? — David)

What may be the most thorough study of home schooling was published last week in the journal Education Policy Analysis Archives. Lawrence Rudner, a statistician at the University of Maryland, looked at the standardized test scores of more than 20,000 home-schooled children across the country.

The results, he said, are "very surprising." Rudner found that home-schooled students score much higher than the national average, even higher than kids at private schools.

He looked at more than test scores. He also examined families' responses about income, schooling, religion and more. Some results weren't that surprising: Home-schooling families tend to be more religious than the general public. They're also more likely to be headed by a father and mother who live under the same roof.

Other findings may shatter the stereotype that home-schooling parents are somehow backward or lack formal education. Over half the families say they earn more than $50,000 a year, compared with about a third of all families. They're also nearly three times as likely as typical adults to have college or graduate degrees.

The study may also offer lessons for parents who send their kids to traditional schools. Home-schooled kids thrive because they have parents who spend lots of time helping them learn.

"If I had to pick one variable that's the most important (in explaining student performance), I think it's parental involvement," Rudner said.

To be sure, this study isn't the final word on home schooling. In part that's because one segment of the home-schooling movement may not have been thoroughly queried: the portion that comes from the countercultural left.

Rudner also says his study isn't meant to suggest that home schooling is for everyone. "The big point is: Home schooling is one alternative among many. It works, and if a parent wants to do it, he should be allowed," he said.

For the survey, Rudner compared scores from the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, given in grades K-8, and the Tests of Achievement and Proficiency, given to high schoolers. The median percentile for all students nationwide is 50, by definition.

In every category and in every grade level, home schoolers score above the national average. In fact, most of their scores are in the 75th to 85th percentile, meaning that home-schooled kids score higher than 75% to 85% of their peers.

On average, home-schooled 4th-graders score about one grade level above 4th-graders in traditional schools, Rudner says.

"By 8th grade, the median performance of home-school students . . . is almost four grade (levels) above that of students nationwide," he found.

Compared with private-school students, home-schoolers' scores are less impressive - but not much. Home schoolers tend to score in the 65th to 75th percentile.

Rudner also notes that kids who are home schooled all their lives tend to do better than kids who attend a conventional school at some time. Wealthier home-schooled kids also outperform kids from poorer families.

So is home schooling better than conventional education? Rudner says not necessarily.

"My big fear is that people will use this study to bash public schools. Some need help, but most of them are doing a wonderful job," Rudner said.

Farris, whose organization funded the peer-reviewed study, added: "I don't believe home schooling turns every child into a Fulbright scholar. Instead, I think it tends to maximize the natural gifts of the child."

About as many boys as girls were surveyed in Rudner's study. Home schooling is more common among younger children than high-school kids.

Rudner also found out lots of information about home-schooling parents.

The families Rudner studied are overwhelmingly white and Christian.

Over 97% of the parents are married. More than 60% of the families have three or more children.

Parents spend an average of $400 a year per child on educational materials. They also limit how much TV their kids watch. Nearly two-thirds of home-schooled kids watch less than an hour of TV a day; three-fourths of kids nationally watch an hour or more.

Politically, many of the parents probably describe themselves as conservatives.

Is this an accurate picture of the entire home-school movement? Not really, says Isabel Lyman, who schools her two teen-age boys at her home in Amherst, Mass.

"A big chunk of the home-schooling movement is represented by the people (in Rudner's study)," Lyman conceded. But there are also a lot of home-school parents who have been influenced by the writings of left-libertarians like John Holt and Paul Goodman, Lyman says.

These parents typically don't teach their kids at home for religious reasons. Instead, they think that almost all schools - public and private - treat kids in a cookie-cutter fashion that crushes their spirits and stifles creativity.

If that's true, and there are a fair number of home schoolers among the countercultural left, how does Lyman explain Rudner's demographic data?

It's simple, she says. Parents had to contact Bob Jones University, a conservative Christian school in Greenville, S.C., for testing materials.

"Bob Jones is a fundamentalist Christian college. Come on, is a (home-school parent) with a hippie-type background going to sign up for that? No way," Lyman said.

Rudner admitted that "there might be a bias. Some people are probably turned off by Bob Jones University." He added that left- leaning parents "might have avoided this whole thing."

Tim Lambert, president of the Lubbock-based Texas Home School Coalition, says the home-school movement is becoming more ethnically diverse.

"Just in the last year we have seen a growing number of minorities involved in home schooling. We are getting a lot of calls from Spanish-speaking folks," Lambert said. "This is not just a white, right-wing thing."

One area Rudner's study didn't address: How do home-schooled kids fare socially?

By most accounts, they're doing fine. They meet other kids their own age and learn the basic norms of civil society.

Christian Smith and David Sikkink, sociologists at the University of North Carolina, point to Education Department data that show home-schooled kids are more likely than their public-school peers to take part in civic activities, such as volunteering for political causes or joining community organizations.

Even so, home-schooled kids face obstacles. Some, like Lyman's children, have turned to public schools for extracurricular activities.

"My own son plays three junior varsity sports - ice hockey, lacrosse and football - at the local school. There's no home-schooling community in the country that could provide that for him," Lyman said. (I have my own definite opinion as to whether this is either necessary, or even a good idea. This creates the "competition" syndrome promoted by Satan, and negates the "servant" of Scripture. You want to think about this, and about what is being promoted around the world with sports, and why it is being promoted. Literally billions of credit dollars are spent on this enterprise every year, and I think anyone would admit that this is being done for reasons that are not revealed. So, you need to begin deciding on these, and other issues, based on Scripture. I know where I stand. — David)

Lambert added: "(Home schoolers) don't have the numbers to put together these types of leagues on their own," especially in rural areas.

(C) Copyright 1999 Investors Business Daily, Inc.


?Now, are you beginning to understand what is America, and the why of our existence? And, do you understand the forces we face? And the absolute evil of these forces? For those who may not have seen them, I strongly urge that you ask for, read and study Posts Number :

84: Occult Symbolism in Washington, DC

85: Occult Symbolism in Washington, DC, Part II

119: The Arms of Mollach

123: Christian Holidays

131: Children and Public schools

133: Genetically Engineered Foods

138: Genetically Altered Foods, Introduction (139, 140, 141)

150: Education and Children, Part II

167: Children and Education, Part III

181: Children and Education, Part IV

186: Children and Education, Part V

192: Genetically Altered Foods, Part III

193: Occult, Part II

199: Children and Education, Part VII

207: Children and Education, Part VIII

211: Satanism in America

?For those of you who are reading Part XIX immediately upon it’s completion, not every one of the above Posts is completed. But, I will make a strong effort, consistent with work on Part XX, to finish those not sent as yet, and to have them Posted to one of the Web sites featuring my work as well. Now, the following is so that you truly do understand the nature of what we face.

David, here is some very useful information that I have obtained about dealing with Satanists. It is all true, I have experienced some of it myself. A good reference for more details are four books written by Rebecca Brown MD. All four are extremely good and informative reading on the subject. She talks a little about the worldwide organization of Satanists, and yes, they do practice human sacrifice on a very regular basis, among other things that are too horrible to even think about. Below are some of my notes on the things that I have learned about "The Craft" as they call it. I assume that a great part of your readers are of a Christian orientation. The Rebecca Brown books give very specific and detailed instructions on how to deal with what I have written below.

(This is the problem with information; how do you judge what you are to listen too? Unless you go back to Scripture, you can not! For instance, women, even women doctors are forbidden to preach, and Demonology is a spiritual phenomenon that can have physical and mental effects. I had to be reminded of this by Brother Anthony of Bible Believers, and I consider this a very important warning. We forget, because of the abnormality of the world around us that it is abnormal! We start to think that we are living in a normal manner because everyone else is living just the same. But you can identify what is abnormal, and self destructive, by referring to Scripture. If it is not in His Word, it can not be normal, nor can it be beneficial to you, or I, or to any man or woman on this earth. Please take this warning seriously. It is important, and what do you do with books on Spiritual matters written by women? If I had any, I would throw them in the garbage where they belong.)

Demons have bodies. Evil spirits don't have bodies. The reference "Demons" is used interchangeably with the reference "evil spirits", kind of like a classification of beings.

From Brother Anthony (Bible Believers): A demon IS an evil spirit! Demons ARE spirits, and as such have NO physical body of their own as they are the souls of "lost’ sinners, OFF the Book of Life, or those of Cain’s race who were never ON the Book of Life. They are DISEMBODIED. The only physical body they can have is the bodies of people (or animals) whose owners allow them to take residence and oppress or possess. Jesus described this in the parable of the person who was justified and sanctified but did not FILL the space formerly occupied by the demon, and he came back with seven of his pals. This of course refers to the church at the end of the Age. It put-out Romanism and became Protestant, but was never born-again and at the end of the age became apostate, re-uniting with the old mother whore. The Gadarene swine are another illustration. God sent us a prophet in THIS day to "FINISH the mystery of God" (Revelation 10:7). Outside his Message there is NO way one can be born-again (or become a Christian) in THIS day. He preached a series on Demonology -- you will find them all in our On-line Resources Area (William Branham Online). The Titles are:

"The Contest" 62-1231; "Casting Out Devils is Casting Out Unbelief" 51-0826; "Demonology -- Physical Realm" 53-0606a; "Demonology -- Religious Realm 56-0607e;

"Enticing Spirits" 55-0724;

Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Lutheran, et al., are CULTS. You are leaving the people in their present "holier than thou" state of delusion unless you reveal this. What about Revelation 18:1-4. Read that. It speaks of Roman Catholicism AND Protestantism. All of them (are) cults, and if you have listened to the news in the past few months and read last week's Newsletter (from Bible Believers) you would see how the Jews and denominations are pushing for legislation AGAINST what THEY call cults but what is anything that will in the near future REFUSE the mark of the Beast, and that is the Trinity dogma.

The ONE and ONLY thing that can create a strengthening factor in our spirits is a clear understanding and application of the revealed Word of God. How can anything of material nature "strengthen" a spirit being???

For those who are reading Part XIX for the first time, there was about 14 pages of details on Satanism contained in it to begin with. As the editing went along, and those who were asked to read it first commented, a general consensus developed which is this: My advice at this time is to omit all of this material on Satanism. And I agree, and I did so. And this is why: Worship in ALL churches outside the PRESENT Truth is Satanism! Jesus said "so close it would almost deceive the very elect". Thank you, Brother Anthony, and for the others who commented as well. You were correct, all of you, and I deeply appreciate the thoughts you have shared with me.

Bother Anthony has this to add; The following is a start to offering the people something positive. But first they should be taught the true Oneness of the Godhead -- not a Trinity, not Unitarianism, and not the false Pentecostal Oneness or "Jesu Only" idea. Then Scriptural water baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and perhaps some understanding of the Pentecostal Feast which types the nine (9) dispensations or divisions within the Gentile dispensation so the people can recognize THEIR day and ITS Message.

Unless we can recognize what part of God's Word He is fulfilling NOW it is impossible for us to serve Him because we are without faith and are offering Him guesswork. God will not accept OUR opinions, He will only receive His Word prophesied for this day and expressed as a living sacrifice. Types the Gentile Dispensation might open up this understanding.

?The original information about Satanism was here for understanding. Understanding of the nature and type of people we face on this earth (there are two natures of people on this earth; there are the destroyers, and the builders, and that is all that can exist here). These are not nice people, and the more you, and I, begin to learn about these men, and women, the closer this should bring us to Him, our Savior and King. If this understanding does not bring you closer, then you have a very serious problem.

?Now, the other side of this is, is the above information True. At least, as far as the existence of Satan. It is indeed, and I have a personal experience to share to demonstrate this. A personal experience that I have shared with only one other man prior to this.

?I had just started College, and this was, as it is for many, the first time that I had been away from home. Having been raised a Catholic, I had no understanding of Scripture although I could recite the Catechism very well! Besides being young, I was also very materialistic, as are so many at that age. And more than slightly lazy, and interested in being rich, right NOW!

?I knew there had to be a short cut to find what I thought I really really really wanted; money. All I had to do was ask for it, as long as I asked for it in the right way. And I had already spent some time (I thought) asking Him for it, so… what other power could there be that could do this, for me? And this would not be hard, I mean, we have all heard how the devil is bound by the use of the name of Jesus Christ! There ain’t no secret to this! I guess I forgot that if it was this easy… why wasn’t the whole world rich, instead of only a few people at the top. But then, when you are eighteen years old, "rich" is a very relative thing and can mean a new car (new for me anyway) and money for hamburgers without having to ask mom or dad for it.

?So, one weekend, alone in my private room at the college I was attending, I asked. I asked and commanded in His Name. And I got an answer, fast.

?A chill went through that room that is impossible to describe, and which I never want to experience again. I did not know what it was, but it shut me up, and I left the room quickly, and did not return until very late that night. I did not repeat what had occurred; I was not capable of doing so. Basically, I closed my mind to the event for many years. I had to, because I could not deal with it. I thought of it only very rarely, and it was more than twenty-five years before I ever spoke of it, to anyone. And this was more than a reluctance to speak of it; I was not capable of speaking about it. If I even thought of speaking of this "event," my lips would not work. And it is easy for me to talk, but not about this. Not even now! I have intended to add this to the Part XIX since I began writing it, but have not been able to do so. I was finally permitted to write this only after Brother Anthony counseled me more on the information on Satanism contained herein and I finally had to answer why it was here to begin with. To myself I had to answer. To myself I had to answer and within myself I had to search, and permit this to come out, finally.

But, and I did not realize this until just a very short time ago, all through the years following this "event," money was easy. For me. I never lacked. I never really looked for it; it was just there. And plenty of it. With more available, if I was willing to do certain things for it. It is only now, that I have become aware of what is going on and turned my back on the "system" that I find myself short of "funds," yet more at peace within myself than I have ever before been.

?Where did things began to change for me? I started making choices which denied me money. I turned away from doing some of the things that would have led to more money. I stopped short of joining in with those who were actually doing, not only immoral things, but actually illegal acts. And, instead of joining everything I was invited to join, including societies, I started saying no, and, over many years, dropped out of the few that I did join, such as the Elks. But the main thing was, I stopped short of committing the illegal acts I was on the verge of committing.

?Acts. By me. Not robbery, or murder, but little things. I started to see what I needed to do to "compete" successfully as a contractor, and I would not do it. I saw what needed to be done to accumulate more, and more, and instead of doing whatever was necessary, I started to stop. And, at this time, the largest check I had received was in excess of six hundred thousand dollars (not all mine, so to speak, as their were many bills to pay out of it, but you can ALWAYS squeeze some out of that much!), so I was close to the point where I could have had "real" money, and I would not pay the price. I started to make decisions that began to turn me away from what I was fast becoming, and away from the "religion" I had been raised in (catholic, as I said, but I had stopped "practicing" many years previous), and started learning. It took many years yet again, and many hard decisions, until I finally was lead to read His Book, but I did it (at the time, I really had no choice; it was like a lesson from Him, saying, do it now, or else I will see to it that you have the time to do so), and many are not so fortunate. I did it, and this is part of the reason I now live as I do, simply, with as few temptations as possible. I understand, and have experienced, the power of evil, and I want no part of it. I want Redemption, and Salvation, and, one day, to walk beside Him. I want it all! I will no longer settle for the little pieces offered as a substitute by Satan; I want it all! And to get to where I want to be means I must Repent, and I must change, and so must you.

?But, it is necessary to understand the other powers present upon this earth for you to make sense of the earth, and why you must be separate from the rest of the earth. I yearn for the day when I may live among my own People, and not be an outcast. My People, who understand, and practice what My King has Commanded that we do. The People who live clean, eat clean, and Obey. Obey Him, and Him Only. But, just Who is this that we are to call upon, and Obey? To know this is to understand.

"If I shut up the sky till no rain falls, or if I bid locusts devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people, then, if my people, who belong to me, humble themselves and pray and seek my presence, turning from their evil ways, I will listen up in heaven and forgive their sins and heal my land." 2 Chronicles 7:13, 14 James Moffat Translation, The Bible

And the second thing that we need to be is free of the practices of our fathers. For instance, "We ask it in your holy name, Amen"

Do you know who "they" mean by Amen? That is Amon-ra, the sun god. The people are hoodwinked into believing that it means "so be it". When it is not capitalized [amen] it might mean that, but when it is capitalized it means Amon-ra. Go to Matthew 6:13; In the Spanish Bible: poque tuyo es el reino, el poder y la gloria, por todos los siglos. Amen. In the French Bible: Car c'est a toi qu'appartiennent le regne, la puissance et la gloire, pour toujours, Amen. In the German Bible: [in a footnote to the verse] Dir gehört alle Herrschaft und Macht und Ehre in Ewigkeit. Amen.

Why does the SAME word keep coming up, no matter what language it is written in? But it is just that ONE word which never changes in all of the various texts. This just might give you a clue as to what we have been brainwashed about and why you must listen inside to accept Him. All of the world is a lie, designed to kill you Spiritually.


?If You have never read the "Rosenthall Interview," then you need to know that the term "God" also means Lucifer. If not, I'll quote from said Interview: "We are god's chosen people . . .Most jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer — so I wasn't lying - and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive."

Page 43, The Hidden Tyranny, Charles A. Weisman Author and Commentator. (I have read the Rosenthall Interview, and many other writings of similar nature, and I think, without any doubt, that this is the True situation which exists today in the world. — David)

?As you are reading this, I want to point out to you what you have learned in this Part of the Series. Go back and review the agreements among the "royalty" and the "churches" which enable the parasites to stay in power. Then, remember, the King James version of the Bible was authorized by a King. Why is it forced upon you as "the only Word of God" and yet, it does not have His Name within it? Why is the so-called clergy of today busy with this book, and why will they not teach the science behind it? These are the questions which are necessary for you to gain further knowledge and understanding.

?I have one more site which I would suggest you visit. In this site, you will find the evidence to put any doubts you may have concerning the Bible and our Savior to rest. Moses really did cross the Red Sea, and the Christ really did die on the cross. These are not made-up stories; they are real, and archeology has proven this beyond any doubt:

?I have just finished reading the material on the above site concerning the Tower of Babel, and it is utterly fascinating, and will lead you to an acceptance of His Word as little else can. All of the information on this site is worth looking at and sharing with many others!

?This has been what I was waiting for, these ongoing messages bringing more understanding, and I knew that it would come so that I could complete Part XIX, and then move on to Part XX. Most of what you have read in this Part I have been aware of, but not in the detail that has been offered to me, and thus to you.

I suggest you study Scripture, and learn what you, and I, are to be doing. Now, and on into the future. May you be Blessed Greatly, and in His Name, the Great Creator, do I work. David

Now, if you are completed with Part XIX, and I hope you have read it at least twice, or, preferably more, then please E-mail <> and request Part XX. All my best, David

The book listed below can also be found on This book will shock you and show you just how deep Satanism is into America. It is not a pretty picture! (For other reference, see Post 211: Satanism in America.)

The Franklin Cover-up - Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska

John W. DeCamp(C) 1992/1996 2nd Edition

AWT Inc.

PO Box 85461

Lincoln, Nebraska 68501

I think $15 plus $2 S and H

*"They are not true "Jews." True Jews, in this sense, would mean that they are descended from the Tribe of Judah, which is the reason that this term has been introduced into language and is used to confuse us; so we would "believe" that these men are of Israel, but rather they are of the "Synagogue of Satan", precisely as Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 state.

These men merely proclaim such out of strategy to effect their purpose. Approximately 85% of them are not even of the "Semitic" bloodline, but rather are of Ashkanazi background/race."

The synagogue of Satan is not Jews alone. It is actually the Illuminati. The Roman Catholic Church is also the synagogue of Satan. If you go to and click the SEARCH button then search the key words "Satan's Synagogue" or "Synagogue of Satan" you will find the explanation. This was covered in one of the recent Bible Believers Newsletters. It refers to a group who have a claim to originality or primacy and therefore to "election" (or elitism). One Group are the Israelites who have been usurped by the Jews. The word "Jew" did not exist in ANY language before 1775 and was in NO Bible until about 1790. "Someone" cunningly saw to it that the word became a colloquialism insomuch that the term "Jew" encompassed Judeans (or Idumaeans) AND Israelites generically. Originally the word was taken from the word Idumaean or Judean and had NOTHING, nothing whatever to do with race, NOTHING to do with the people of the Tribe of Judah, and NOTHING to do with religion. It referred pure and simple to the residents of a piece of GEOGRAPHY known as Judea, and later Idumea. MOST of these people were Edomites and Canaanites who FORCIBLY adopted the Jewish religion under Judas Maccabaeus and intermarried with the Israelites.

It would be good for you to read the series "Esau/Edom, and the Trail of the Serpent" on the Teaching Sermons Area of These people are serpent's seed and accursed of God. They have STOLEN Jacob's birthright (or so they think) and HIDDEN their identity behind the "chosen people", "God's People", the only nation on earth who are God's. etc. Later, in about AD740, they converted the nation of Khazaria. Thus we have a NATURAL people who say they are of the Tribe of Judah but are NOT". Indeed they are related to NONE of the Tribes. (See the book "The Thirteenth Tribe," on Bible Believers site.)

If you search The Encyclopaedia Judaica or any Jewish Encyclopaedia under "statistics" you will find a breakdown between Sephardim (largely Edomites and Canaanites) and Ashkenazim (largely Khazars or Hittites), and the Hasidic Jew. Something like 95% are listed an NON-Semitic. The same in Encyclopaedia Britannica where you will find the information under Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

BUT there is a "spiritual" serpents seed. As the NATURAL serpent's seed are a hybrid from Eve and the Serpent, the SPIRITUAL serpent's seed claim to be of the SECOND Eve, the Roman Catholic church who, like her natural TYPE claims to be "the mother of all that is living SPIRITUALLY". If you are not in her group or in one of her daughter churches that are spiritually born by hybreeding the SEED of God's Word (which is Life) with Satan's carnal reasoning against the Word (which is death), then you cannot go to heaven, they say.

So the Romans claim they are "Jews" or an original election with primacy -- founded on Peter, etc, Pope is infallible, etc., but they are NOT "Jews" (i.e. elect). (There is another interesting point about the Roman church: the Title claimed by and used by the Popes. "Pontifex Maximus" -- Bridge-builder or Mediator. The story promoted by the Roman church is that Attalus III of Pergamum, descendant of the Babylonian priest-king, died without an heir and that he willed the Roman Empire and ownership of the entire earth/kingdom to the Roman Empire, from which this ownership was transferred by one of the Christian Emperors to the Roman/catholic church. This is shown to be a hoax and fabrication developed within the Roman church itself in the book ‘The Dollar and the Vatican’ by Avro Manhattan [Order from Christian Truth and Victory Publications, 9088 CO. RD. 11 N.W., Alexandria, MN, 56308]. Julius Caesar paid 4,000,000 what evers for the Title used today by the "Pope" and then took both the kingdom physical and spiritual for he became Pontiff Maximus of the Babylonish religion and was therefore priest-king. This title passed on to the following emperors until the time of Maximus III who refused it. According to Stevens' History it was then that the pope took the headship the emperor rejected and today there is still a pontiff in the world, and he is truly Pontiff Maximus. He wears a triple crown and resides in Rome. And in Revelation 17 God does not any longer refer to Pergamos as Satan's seat nor does he say that is where Satan dwells. No, the throne room is no longer in Pergamos, but it is MYSTERY Babylon. It is not in Babylon but in MYSTERY Babylon. . . or Rome!)

Whenever was "Satan's seat" in Israel? Revelation 2:13? It started in Babylon in the days of Nimrod, then moved to Pergamum (Pergamos) with Babylon's Priest-King following the fall of Babylon, thence to Rome and then when a Christian Emperor refused the title "Pontifex Maximus" (Bridge Builder, or Mediator), the Pope took it and has held it since that time. (Please carefully note once again that Caesar was the first to hold this title in Rome; he purchased it and became the first Emperor of Rome/earth. With this understanding it is also interesting to look at the claim of infallibility of the Pope, and the elect of god. This is a relatively new claim, and has only been promoted for a couple of hundred years. There are a large number of books by Avro Manhattan about the Roman church which you would find very interesting to read. - David)

On the matter of "slavery" I think you will find that the Canaanites (who later became the Sephardic Jews) ran the slave trade in Canaan and around the Mediterranean, and were also in charge of the trade in Negro and white slaves to America. There is a man named Wiseman who has a number of very good books on this subject. One of the best is "They Were White and They Were Slaves." In his books, Wiseman not only shows that most of the slaves first brought to the new world were white, but that the original slave traders were all so-called Jews. It is also interesting to note that the word "slave" is derived from "slav" which is a white race of Eastern Europe. Wiseman goes into this in some detail as well.


Also, "The majority of Biblical Scholars recognize Rome to be the 6th head of the 7 headed "Beast" described in Revelation upon which the "Great Prostitute" sat & which was in existence at that time of Christ, the Civil/Military government of Rome. The 7th head is similarly recognized as then prophesying of our modern AngloAmerican Civil/Military government.

****This is incorrect**** "Five were fallen - Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus; one was ruling at the start of the first or Ephesian Church Age - Nero, and one was yet to come - Domitian. Seven Roman emperors. But how do we know THESE seven are the 'kings' of which Jesus was speaking?" Read about it in of Tabernacles, Part II's Purpose, Absolute Dominion by One World Government 17:12-13 - Part IV

And the Eighth is the Pope of Papal Rome. The information we have seen above (by main-stream Bible Scholars) cannot possibly be correct. Not in a million years because Daniel and Revelation say Rome rules to the Consummation. Imperial Rome changed to Papal Rome following the First Nicea Council of AD325 (Pope = Pontifex Maximus). The Anglo-American set-up is Rome's arch-enemy for control of the world, the self-styled Jew, which is partly in control within the Vatican as well! Britain is controlled by the City of London that controls the States. I think that you will see the union of these powers, or the destruction of the City of London, to permit the Anti-Christ to come forth. One way this could be done, and the Angilcan Church brought back into the fold, so to speak, is to have the King of England elevated to Pope from his position as Prince and Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire. Of course, before this could happen, the Queen would have to die. The other alternative is the actual destruction of The City and/or the states, i.e., America, and I begin to think this may be a very valid alternative.

?Please always remember Part III of The Series; 99% (and more!) of what you hear and are told is a lie! Believe that, and start operating from that position, and you will always move closer to the Truth as a result! If main stream thinking is thus, then you know it is a lie! If main stream Bible Scholars say thus and thus, then you know it is a lie! Act accordingly. And my Jesus Christ Bless you all, Greatly, David G.

Now that you have finished Part XIX, and if you are ready, please E-mail and request Part XX.