Who Owns the Copyright to All Creation?

John 1:3 tells us “all came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be”. In verse 4 we are told “in Him was life, and the life was the light of mankind”, therefore, the literal meaning of this passage is that His Word equals life for all mankind.

But now we must back up. Who created the Word? Who gave life to the Word?

Creation for we, the physical realm began ‘in the beginning’, in Genesis 1:1 but for the Father, creation began in His spiritual mind and thus the biography of mankind in the physical realm was born well before it came to be in the flesh. We see this kind of thing taking place in the physical realm daily. Let me explain.

An author writes a book and then some movie producer picks up on it and thinks to himself, ‘this would make a great movie’. And thus the 3-d version of the book is brought to life.

Now this begs the question? Who is the one who owns the original copyright of this book now turned into life, the author of the book or the movie producer who made it come to life? Do all royalties from the movie go to the producer or does the author still continue to own the original copyright and therefore reap royalties as long as the movie continues to sell?

Well sadly today, many authors sell out their right for a one time, looks good payment of money and then the movie producer is now at liberty to change, to take away or to add to the original text of the book. So is this also true of God’s Word? Did He sell His copyright to the Son so that the Son could bring life to all mankind in a way that seems right in the eyes of the Son? Two of the several witnesses in the New Testament testify to us as to whether or not this is true. John 10:18 “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This command I have received from My Father”. 1Co 6:20 “For you were bought with a price, therefore esteem Elohim in your body and in your spirit, which are of Elohim”.

So as it is here, it continues as we read and study the New Testament. We see that the Son did not take liberties with the Word of the Father, but remained faithful to the original Word that was born of the Spirit of the Father.

This process of an original author and then later a producer is not just manifest in books and movies; it is evident in every aspect of our daily lives in the products we use. There is an original concept born in the mind of an inventor, a patent is then procured for that product and then the minute details are then given to a manufacturer who brings that patent to life so to speak. And while the manufacturer reaps benefits from the original patented product, the original patent still belongs to the one who gave birth to the concept of the product and thus the manufacturer is constantly subject to the original owner as long as that product is being produced by the manufacturer.

Now the same holds true for manufactured products as does the book. The original can be sold for a price thereby forgoing any and all future royalties of said product for a one-time payment in full for the patent to the product.

In 1 Cor 15:28, Paul reveals to us that the original copyright of creation has always remained with the Father, “And when all are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself shall also be subject to Him who put all under Him, in order that Elohim be all in all”. The Son, the producer, was and is always subject to the original book and at no time was the Son given liberty to add to or to take away from the instructions given in the original copyrighted book. This is evidenced to Paul in the words of the Son in Mt 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done”.

And this copyright ownership was not revealed just at this one time during the Sermon on the Mount, but it was also reinforced when it was repeated to John in the closing of His book of life, Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the heaven saying, “See, the Booth of Elohim is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and Elohim Himself shall be with them and be their Elohim … 7 The one who overcomes shall inherit all this, and I shall be his Elohim and he shall be My son … 18 For I witness to everyone hearing the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, Elohim shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Elohim shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the set-apart city, which are written in this Book”.

Now notice the 2 distinct retributions, the former is punishment of suffering plagues and the latter speaks of those who diminishes His authority by diminishing His Word, he is the one who suffers eternal death. The one who says that this part or that part of His Book does not pertain to certain members of His creation should seriously, very seriously take heed these Words of His Book in Rev 22:19.

It matters not who speaks for the Father, the Son or we, the sons and daughters, the original copyright and its royalties have always remained with the Father and will always remain with the Father. Therefore, no one, no not one, not even the Son has ever had the liberty to make changes, to substitute one people for another, to release instructions when the Father had not released them, etc.

The Son, by the authority of the Father was granted the authority to shed His blood so to seal the New Covenant, therefore all royalties from that blood belong to the Father and what are the royalties? They are the lives of those who enter into the New Covenant with the Father through the Son by the authority of the Father given to the Son.

This is why we are told to ‘count the cost’. Are we willing to give, that is to subject our entire being to the Father according to the script of His Book that He revealed through the Son, the producer who has no authority to make even the tiniest of changes to the script or have we become partakers in the stealing of the script of His copyrighted Book by making changes to it that He did not authorize?

Who holds the royalties of your life? The true original owner who never relinquished those royalties or the one who first made himself manifest in the garden, the liar, the stealer of the copyrighted Book that originally belonged to the Father? As it was then, it still remains today, the lie continues …

“If you sin, if you do that which He told you not to do, you will not reeeally die”

There has been no greater lie told since the beginning of the production of His Book. As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end, a world that really has no end as His Book truly has no end, but concludes with a revelation of the eternal life to come that was promised to mankind the day He breathed life into them, the life being His Word that put on flesh. He knows all the characters in the 2nd production to come but we do not, and that is why we must all ‘count the cost’ and then upon taking the oath, the confessing of the Son, we are legally bound to the terms of the original copyrighted Book, just as the Son was lest we one day find ourselves in front of Him hearing these words,

Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!’” [Mt 7:22-23]

So to reiterate the point, the Son’s blood was not a ‘one-time payment’ for all royalties on the original copyright of the Covenant so that we all now own the copyright thereby allowing us to go and do what is right in our own eyes. And to prove this we need only to revisit the words of Messiah in Mt 5:17 in their proper context of Mt 5:17-20.

Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. 18 For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. 19 Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.”

The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father and the Son in us therefore, the Father in us, as it has been from the beginning. The Son came to direct the production of His Father’s Book and therefore, there has been no breach of Covenant between the Father and the Son. And if we are true to the Word, then there should also be no evidence of any breach of Covenant between we and the Father, the possessor of the original Covenant. This Book of the Father is still in the stage of production, therefore the Covenant between the Father and the Son is still valid.

Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’ sake, because theirs is the reign of the heavens

As long as there is breathe in us, His breathe, it is never too late to exit ‘stage left out in the cold’ and return to His ‘stage of righteousness’. This is the plea of the Son. He wants us all in His production of His Father’s Book of Creation, the Father’s Book of Life!

Yes Virginia, In You is a Gift of Personal Righteousness

Virginia, you, as I were taught that we can only be saved through the Righteousness of Messiah. Throughout the ages children of God have been taught that we have no righteousness of our own and are totally covered under His. But is this Scriptural? Is this true? No it is not. In fact the truth is the exact opposite of what we were taught.

In Matthew 3:15 Messiah says “Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fill all righteousness”. This means that John’s part in Messiah’s baptism was counted to John as righteousness.

Mat 21:32 “for John came to you in the way of righteousness…”

In Matthew 5:6 in the Sermon on the Mount Messiah says “blessed are those who thirst after righteousness” and then 4 verses later He tells us that in doing righteousness we will be persecuted and in that persecution for doing righteousness, we will be blessed.

Ok Virginia, I know, you are thinking, well Messiah is speaking to the Jews but do we really know for sure that they were all Jews, that they were all citizens of region of Judea which is the correct and proper definition for the word “Jew(s)” in the bible.

We can quickly understand who Messiah was speaking to by going to the book of Acts. In chapter 10 verses 34-35 we see Peter upholding Messiah’s righteousness teaching He gave during His Sermon on the Mount.

Act 10:34 And opening his mouth, Peter said, “Truly I see that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation, he who fears Him and does righteousness is accepted by Him.

You see Virginia, righteousness simply means doing what is right according to the instructions that the Word of God gave through Moses. (Mt 5:17-20, 22:37-40, 23:1-3) This is what it means to work out our own salvation. With all our heart, mind and strength we strive to do His instructions as He gave them, to do them to the best of our ability and not as a means of salvation but as evidence of our belief in Him that gave them to us to keep us safe and to bless us.

Act 7:37 “This is the Moses who said to the children of Israel, YHVH your God shall raise up for you a Prophet (Word of God) like me (Moses) from your brothers. Him (Word of God) you shall hear.’ 38 “This is he (Moses) who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Messenger (Word of God) who spoke to him (Moses) on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the Living Words to give to us, 39 unto whom our fathers would not become obedient, but thrust away, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt,

Heb 4:2 For indeed the Gospel was brought to us as well as to them (at Mt Sinai), but the word which they heard did not profit them, not having been mixed with belief in those who heard it.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we saw His esteem, esteem as of an only brought-forth of the Father, complete in favour and truth.

Every parent understands that as a parent, they know what is best for their children and we being children of God, God knows what is best for us. When we say that we know better than God and turn to worship Him and live in society according to our own will and not His, we are acting like ungrateful and rebellious children. What happens when we disobey our parents of the flesh? We are disciplined. The same is for our Father in Heaven. When we disobey Him, we remove ourselves from His safety covering (His grace/favor) from which all blessings flow and in doing so we are left exposed to the curses of the world.

Heb 12:7 If you endure discipline, God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become sharers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Moreover, we indeed had fathers of our flesh disciplining us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they indeed disciplined us for a few days as seemed best to them, but He does it for our profit, so that we might share His apartness.

Now knowing and understanding that in the flesh we can never be perfect as Messiah was perfect, God from the beginning has revealed an additional Righteousness to come. A Righteousness that has now been fulfilled for all to come under, all that have gone before us and all that are to come, as God’s Word and His promises are outside of time. They speak to all generations as if all generations existed at the same time.

Rom 3:21 But now, apart from the Torah, a Righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Torah and the Prophets, 22 and the Righteousness of God is through belief in Yeshua Messiah to all and on all who believe.

Heb 11:1 And belief is the substance of what is expected, the proof of what is not seen. 2 For by this the elders obtained witness. 3 By belief, we understand that the ages were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made of what is visible…8  By belief, Aḇraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he was about to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Aḇraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness … Gen 15:6 And he believed in YHVH, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness. Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed My voice and guarded My Charge: My commands, My laws, and My Torah.

Who and what was it that Abraham believed and in that belief Abraham obeyed?

Gen 15:1 After these events the Word of YHVH came to Aḇram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Aḇram. I am your shield, your reward is exceedingly great.”

Belief in the Son is belief in His Word as the two are one in the same and through Messiah’s Righteousness and His shed blood, we now have security to know that as long as we strive to do that same righteousness that John the Baptist did by being obedient unto death, as long as we acknowledge our sin, ask forgiveness then go and do that sin no more, we too can reach the goal of eternal life just as His only begotten Son, the Living Word did.

1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, stay in Him, so that when He appears, we might have boldness and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone doing righteousness has been born of Him.

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one lead you astray. The one doing righteousness is righteous, even as Messiah is righteous… 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Everyone not doing righteousness is not of God,

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible teaches us that there is righteousness for us to attain to. Not for salvation but as evidence thereof. We do what we believe because we believe in what we do. Salvation came in the form of the flesh to instruct and teach us the proper way to do righteousness in the flesh. He did not take it away for if He did then even His own Righteousness which we need in the end is also taken away. If that which defines what sin is according to God (the Father in whose Authority Messiah came in) is gone, then that leaves us in a pretty precarious state as then we have no need of a Messiah at all and everyone can continue to do what is right in their own eyes according to their own will rather than according to God’s will.

Yes Virginia, the Living Word was nailed to the cross, however, that Living Word then resurrected in all its Glory and Splendor as it was in the beginning so that it would forever shine forth throughout the entire world. Through resurrection, the Living Word defeated eternal death thereby obtaining eternal victory over the Adversary of the Living Word.

Know this then, if we are in the Light of the Living Word and He in us, then the Light of the Living Word and all His Righteousness reflects in all that we do because we believe and strive with all our heart, mind and strength, and in humble submission to the One who gave life to both we and His Living Word, if we do this just as the Living Word did while He was in the flesh that was according to what He was supposed to do according to the Father’s instructions, we too will achieve to the same righteousness as our forefathers did and in ‘That Day’ we all together will receive our own crown as Messiah did.

Heb 11:39 And having obtained witness through the belief, all these did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided what is better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

So Virginia, do not let anyone continue to deceive you. You do have your own righteousness in you and this righteousness is a gift, a blessing from God your Father and He is patiently waiting for you to un-wrap this gift, then share this gift from Him with the world.




Charge of God’s “Light” Brigade

As some may recall, from recent news, a “National Call to Prayer” for the economic crisis in our nation was held in Texas. I found it rather interesting that they chose Saturday as the day rather than having it held as a national event during Sunday worship services. Why Saturday & not on Sunday when the majority of all Christians worship? Well, this morning during my daily walk with God, the light bulb went off! Let me tell you about it.

One of my now all-time favorite movies is “The Blindside”. The message it sends is so powerful and speaks to so many subject matters that one cannot fully grasp its power in one sitting. The overtones of all the spiritual healing that Jesus taught through his works that are written in the New Testament are astounding. The overtones of His protection for His children cannot be escaped for ones who truly seek Him.

So where did the light come in for me?

The one scene that has stood out for me for some reason was towards the end. The dreadful term paper all students fear as it holds such great weight to their final reward. Do they pass or do they fail? And the choice of literature one chooses for that paper is as important as the paper itself. How do you write about something you do not know or understand? Is not understanding, the root of all knowledge? Let’s reflect on the understanding…

“Their’s is not to question why, their’s but to do & die”

What was Alfred Lord Tennyson really saying when he wrote the now famous “Charge of the Light Brigade”? What knowledge through understanding can we gleam about God from this famous poem?

“Their’s not to question why”

All our life we are told to question everything, especially authority. I agree to a certain extent as all things in life need to have boundaries that protect them. Those boundaries are put there for our protection and what happens when you cross over the boundaries of protection? You are exposed to all sorts of danger & evil. So what we really should have been taught is to question authority with discernment. Proper discernment regarding authority tells us that man is fallible but God is not. God never changes & neither does His Word. He set boundaries for His children for a good reason and one day He will tell us all about it.

Until then, with proper discernment, let’s go to the Gospels to discern the proper understanding of Matthew 5:17-20.

 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

I want to point out two key phrases in this passage: “Law & Prophets” and “to fulfill”.

“To fulfill”. . . Church authority, theology of man, has taught us that this means that through the crucifixion & resurrection, we are no longer bound to the 10 Commandments or Gods’ statutes & ordinances He spoke to His people through Moses & the Prophets. We are now saved by grace through faith alone. If we sin, all we have to do pray for forgiveness and then keep living our lives the way WE want to as the flesh is separate from the spirit. But is that so? When did circumcision of the heart first appear? Modern clergy & theologians tell us it began in the New Testament with Jesus but I beg to differ with them as God clearly spoke it through Moses in the desert before His children even entered the Promised Land.

Deuteronomy 30:6 ~ And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Ezekiel 11:19 ~ Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh

This is the new covenant spoken by Paul in his letter to the gentile church at Corinth.

2 Corinthians 3: 4-6, 12-18 ~ And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. . . Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Paul is teaching that even though the veil remains for many of His children, God has lifted that veil for those who have entered into His faith; including those who had never heard the Word of God let alone read about it.

In God’s language, one of the roots words for fulfill is H7999 (shalom) שׁלם. Reading right to left we have the Hebrew letters sheen: fire, destroy (sh), lamed: strength, authority (l) and mem: chaos (m).  Can you see the simplicity of God’s language? Does this word remind you of an oft spoken & sung word in the church? It should. To fulfill is to bring peace. SHALOM! Shalom is “The authority that destroys chaos!” Hebrew doesn’t have vowels thus those jots & tittles Jesus spoke of are what fills in the vowels so we know which Hebrew word He is speaking. Without those jots & tittles His spoken & written word gets all twisted & messed up. And who does that best? Man does!

For the discerned heart then, how do we get peace? Through RESTORATION. In Hebrew, God’s language spoken though Moses & the Prophets, to fulfill is to RESTORE! Not to abolish. Jesus said He came to RESTORE not abolish!

Now that we have that down, we need to understand what Jesus really spoke about the “Law & the Prophets”. Were those really His words?  And why are they Capitalized?

In the Hebrew scroll of Matthew that the Greek NT was written from, Law & Prophets is written as one word, (Torah) תּורה. Again, reading right to left we have the tav: mark of as in mark of the covenant, seal as in covenant seal (t), the vav: nail that binds (in this case it is a silent connector), the reysh: head (r) and the Hey: behold, reveal (h). Sounded out we get the spoken word “TORAH”. In other words, what Jesus was saying is that “Behold, the New Covenant of I AM”. The reason “Law & Prophets” is capitalized is that it is “The Word”, the spoken & written eternal & forever covenant of God that Jesus came to instruct upon as man had messed it all up!  God had it written down so it could be taught to all generations, from beginning to end and that is why the Five Books of Moses are called the “Torah”. They contain everything we need to know about our Messiah & our spiritual marriage covenant with God. These five books contain all of the “I shalls and I shall nots. Ask yourself, what happens when you break a marriage vow? Then ask yourself how could it be that He came to abolish that which He came to restore which is His everlasting covenant that binds He to us & us to He? Does a marriage counselor tell a couple that in order to sustain the marriage they must keep breaking their vows? Absolutely not! So where did the idea that Jesus came in order to break His Father’s everlasting covenant come from? Well, that is for another lesson and it is a very enlightening one at that. For now, let’s continue on by returning to Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem.

“Their’s but to do & die”

Sounds fatal doesn’t it? Taken in a legalistic sense yes; but let’s look at it from a spiritual sense.

“Do”, to serve, to labor, to guard. What was the first commandment God gave to Adam? To do, he was to lovingly tend & guard the garden. He was to be the protector of the gates as not to let any weeds or chaos enter into it. But what happened? Adam fell asleep on the job so to speak and guess who snuck in, the snake who thrives on chaos. He, whose entire being depends on it. Chaos is what happens when we do not protect our hearts from its host. When we do not faithfully tend & guard in God’s Torah, chaos breaks out in our lives, both physically & mentally because we do not understand the awesomeness of His power as the head of the spiritual family. God is our commander, our leader, our protector & our salvation. Every house has rules in order that chaos does not break out and in God’s house there is no exemption. But like a responsible parent’s love, His guides us with tough love and with a gentile hand during the times we truly mess up.

In Hebrew, love is spelled רחם. Again, reading right to left we have the reysh, the head (r), the chet, the fence that protects (ch as in Bach) and the mem, the chaos (m). God tells us that love is “The head that protests the children from chaos”. Does a loving parent let their child run amuck causing chaos in the entire neighborhood as well as their own home or do they gently sit them down to instruct them, to guide them, which in turn protects them from their ignorance? When one loves their parents with their whole heart they strive to always please the parent.

“Die”, to go, walk, come. Where did we come from? Where are we walking? Where shall we go? These are all very important questions each one of us must answer.  Jesus said in Mark 10, “take up your cross and follow me” and Psalms 85 tells us that His footsteps are our pathway. Wow, sounds like both action & direction as we see from the Hebrew definition of “die”. Mark 7 & Luke 13: Make straight my path, enter through the narrow gate, narrow is the gate and difficult is the path, wide is the gate & the path to destruction.

It is human instinct to take the path of least resistance, is it not? Well, since we are not talking of human flesh, we need to concentrate on whose spirit is leading us through the path of our life in the flesh. It is this path that leads us to where we will be going. Do we die to the chaos of the flesh that leads us down the broad path to the wide gate of destruction or do we die to the spirit of eternal life by lovingly tending & guarding His Word to make straight the path to the narrow gate in order that we do not miss it. If the world does not see Him in us, how are they to know He even exists? Some of the scribes and Pharisees had changed so much of God’s Word that a lot of people, including scribes and Pharisees didn’t even recognized Jesus as the Messiah while He walked with them in the flesh. Out of ignorance, they instead sought out destruction, the destruction of the Messiah that had come for them.

Matthew 5:20 ~ For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven

Jesus was talking about trustful & faithful obedience, not abundance of knowledge. The adding to & subtracting from God’s word by scribes & Pharisees had caused great chaos. Jesus considered them the lowest of the low. Jesus came as our light in order that we may understand; so that we would be a testimonial light to the future generations of the world after He ascended to be with His Father. He, Jesus, taught that that understanding comes from Moses, “have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12)

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a set-apart nation, a people for a possession, that you should proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, Footnote: Ex 19:5-9. 10 who once were not a people, but now the people of God; who had not obtained compassion, but now obtained compassion. … 21 For to this you were called, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps,1Footnote: 11 Cor. 11:1, 1 John 2:6. 22 who committed no sin,1 nor was deceit found in His mouth,”2 Footnotes: 1John 8:55, John 15:10, 2 Cor. 5:21, John 3:5. 2Isa.53:9.

Which leads me back to the question, why have a national call to prayer to plead to God to destroy chaos on Saturday and not on Sunday? Maybe because they thought they could more easily get God’s ear on His day of rest & worship rather the man-made one that was adopted from the chaos that first appeared in the Garden of Eden? The chaos that was at the foot of Mt Sinai when Moses first descended with God’s 10 Words that God, himself, spoke to the crowd for all to hear; the chaos that rejected God’s Sabbath for a day appointed by man and for man against the will and desire of Our Father in Heaven.

Well, I do not know what the outcome of the national prayer will be; however I do know how the poem ended.  Alfred Lord Tennyson went on. . .

Into the valley of death rode the six hundred! . . . When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made! . . . Honor the charge they made, Honor the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred.

The brigade feared not. They whole heartily honored and trusted their leader, never questioning his authority or commands. Now that’s FAITH! That’s Glory! That’s HONOR!

God is seeking hearts like that of the Six Hundred for His Brigade! Keep watch for the news of the new Saturday Sabbath study/worship coming soon.

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.


Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

Oh how this rings true for today’s times.  We are not far from our founding in years, but oh so far from its founding principles that the chains of oppression are felt daily. Can we make it back? Only God knows. Say a prayer for His will to be done.

The New “Touchy-Feely” Religion of Redistribution

Or as I like to call it, “Today’s twisted & watered down version of God’s Scriptures that are being heralded from the pulpits of the 501C(3) churches across America. Brought to us by the US Govt’s new age socialist “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps”; because being true “Red, White & Blue” Ministers of God’s Laws is just too passe’ for today’s times of a touchy-feely religion of redistribution.”

I have been digging deep & studying the rich religious history of America for nearly 2 years now; especially the Annals of Congress, the Library of Congress online, the Belcher Foundation, the Avalon Project, the Heritage Foundry, Hillsdale College, the Kirby Center & the online Library of Liberty to name just a few.  Did you know that at google books (books.google) you can get free PDF copies of many of the original works & books from the founding Era and the immediate decades following the ratification of our Constitution such as the very 1st commentaries on American law written by James Wilson (1791) who was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence & the US Constitution & also the founder of the 1st official American law school?

Also, did you know that one of the 1st Major Generals of the revolution was a preacher by the name of Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg and that this guy was not afraid to preach the politics of what a moral government should be from the pulpit of the 2 churches he served in Woodstock, Va., one being a German speaking Lutheran church & the other an English speaking Episcopal church. Yes, it was common for preachers to give sermons on tyranny, taxation without representation, election sermons on what the qualities of ministers (elected officials) of the Civil (Man’s) Law should possess, what the proper role of government is & what type of government is the best in order for the members of a religious society to maintain its God given liberties. I found out that this was a common practice going back to the pilgrims first settling in America; (A practice that they brought with them from their native lands in Europe & Scandinavia). Also, did you know that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers? Imagine that; preachers who also knew it was their duty according to God’s Laws to serve as elected officials (Ministers of Civil Law) while still serving their congregations as Ministers of God’s Laws. In fact, the very 1st speaker of the US House of Representatives was none other than Rev. Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, the brother of Maj. Gen. (Rev.) Peter Muhlenberg. You can find Frederick’s signature on the bottom of the “Bill of Rights”. I’ll be coming back to all this at a later date, for now let’s move onto today’s topic: the touchy-feely religion of redistribution.

I hadn’t realized how bad this practice of “twisted teaching” of the bible had gotten until several months ago when my UPS (United Patriots Service) driver handed me a package containing a much anticipated copy of the 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible. This bible was banned by the British Crown in all of its colonies & territories in order to keep the kings subjects under oppression and one could say that the pilgrims smuggled it with them when they came to America.

Once in my hands, an overwhelming thirst for more knowledge caused me to rip the packaging that kept this wonderful book of God’s laws hidden from the light of day & the packaging that kept its pages bound shut. I couldn’t help but wonder why this version of the bible had been kept so secret for the past 100 years or so. Well, no wonder…

Once light was cast upon the pages, one could plainly see that all that talk in the annotations (that were banned by the king) of duty & due diligence to God’s laws set forth in the bible, liberty, free speech, patriotism, limited government, qualifications of ministers of law (elected officials), self reliance & self responsibility for ones actions goes against every fiber & letter of the socialist agenda. The modern “Socialist” theologians have taken the true meaning of the text of the Scriptures containing God’s Laws & his instructions on the establishment of civil governments for a moral & religious society and twisted them in order to perpetuate their immoral & corrupt self serving totalitarian agenda of forming a new national touchy-feely religion of redistribution. These members of the new age “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps” are aiding in the government’s stealing of our private property in the name of the good Samaritan by calling it God’s work. By promoting all these federal ‘AID’ programs that have nothing to do with true charity; these new age religious defense linebackers promote the exact opposite of the original & pure laws set forth in the bible.

The original laws in their purest form set forth by God are too harsh & just plain mean according to these socialist theologians. They are also no longer politically correct or expedient thus we must not teach them to our children lest they might travel a moral, knowledgeable & just road that is in opposition to the socialist agenda. Heaven forbid they would find out that there are consequences for immoral and unlawful actions. No, they must be taught that the new reading of the scriptures demands a touchy-feely definition of a law breaker by giving them an infliction which I shall call a psychological deficiency of the brain waves (momentary or long term lapse of moral judgment). If this deficiency is found in a criminal, an immoral person or select groups of immoral or criminal people, it allows the socialist law makers & judges to redistribute wealth from the victim to the criminal, from the moral to the immoral, from the hard working, self reliant achievers to the lazy, self-serving govt. trough feeders. Now mind you, I am not saying that ALL welfare is bad, there is a justification for some, but let’s get real here; when the govt. shells out 10’s of billions of dollars every year of other peoples money to people who were not qualified for or deserving of it in the 1st place, there is a breach of the civil law as well as a breach of the 8th, 9th & 10th Commandments of God’s Laws. You know, those 10 Commandments in which ALL civil law is to be based from?

Today’s example of the ‘socialist theologian’ propaganda came from a “Linebacker of Religion Defense Corps” pulpit member while I was listening to the Sunday sermon of a local church, whose denomination’s core principles have consistently deteriorated over the past couple of decades, but a denomination in which I am still currently a member of, just not a member of this particular local church. The sermon was based yet again on the new age ‘socialist’ text of a bible parable that has been transcribed by a modern day ‘socialist’ theologian. Now while these parables are integral in teaching, does anyone else besides me feel they are getting a bit mundane? Especially since these religious defense linebackers don’t use the entire text of the parables anymore. Has anyone else noticed how they chop them off right before the heart of the meaning of the parable is revealed? But I digress.

This week’s parable was all about the good Samaritan (Luke 10). Now while this parable is suppose to teach about loving thy neighbor as thyself while also doing ones duty of due diligence in following, spreading & teaching God’s laws, it seems that the these modern day ‘socialist’ theologians have written a new age ‘socialist’ theology of which the good Samaritan in now meant to mean the equivalent of the 21st century Robin Hood type Robber Barron and if there is a chance that the stranger on the side of the road “MAY” be an enemy, it is ok to turn & walk away. So, here we go:

Close your eyes & imagine listening to a sermon being given from a pulpit of God by a linebacker of the new age religion defense corps in which he includes a story of his missionary work in Kenya (I know, how ironic).

According to the religious defense linebacker, while there he had to travel a distance to get to the location of the missionary work to be done. Well, before departing, a fellow missionary pulled him aside and told him that if he came upon a person laying on the side of the road he was to keep going and not stop to ask if the person needed help because it “MAY” be a trap. He was to ignore what he saw & leave the poor soul laying there along side the road and forge ahead to the mission work site. “WHAT? BACK UP THE HORSE BESSY!” A preacher telling his congregation that it IS ok to turn your back on a stranger lying on the side of the road because of location? A preacher who IS suppose to be teaching his congregation that our enemies ARE our neighbors and we are to treat them no differently in their time of need than we would a friend? And let’s not forget the most important fact of this story & that is, he was to pre-judge the situation. Yes, it is the new modern day ‘socialist’ theology to teach your congregation & especially the youth to fear your neighbor instead of treating him like a friend.

So, keeping along that theme of his twisted text, this new age religious defense linebacker then goes on to reel in the sports fan in the pew by interjecting the LeBron James headline of the week: “LeBron James signs with the Miami Heat”.  Yes, LeBron James is now a sainted patriot of goodwill because he is moving to a new team in order to help “redistribute basketball championships among the less fortunate teams” who have yet to achieve that accomplishment. I KID YOU NOT! You just can’t make this kind of socialist ministerial propaganda up!

Meanwhile, still sitting in anticipation of hearing about the monetary part of the good Samaritan parable (charitable goodwill & honoring contracts), I found out that this was to be the sermon from whence nothing on that subject was to come. Nope, nada, not a word about how governments taking property from one in order to give it to another is unlawful under the laws set forth by God in the Scriptures. I also heard nothing about not expecting anything in return for the good deed that was done. You see that is not part of this new ‘social justice’ religion and according to the new age “Socialist Theology” is perfectly proper & lawful to be a modern day Robin Hood type Robber Barron. Also, if someone helps you in your time of need, in some cases you may be expected to return the cost of that charitable goodwill deed that was done for you, even if you can not afford it. This all depends if you are from the moral or immoral, criminal or law abiding class of persons.

By this time, the religious defense linebacker’s time was running to a close and there was still one part of the parable that he had not addressed; the part where in it tells of our duty to be diligent & unwavering in following, spreading & teaching God’s Laws & if we do this, he will always be with us. It is now 10pm & I’m still waiting.

In closing, here is what I learned from God’s pulpit by a member of the “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps” of the 501C(3) socialist theologian society of the US Government:

1)      Civil laws do not apply to criminals or the immoral because they might be inflicted with a medical condition of the psychological deficient brain wave type. (momentary or long term lapse of moral judgment)

2)      The parable of the good Samaritan is about NOT helping a neighbor in need (especially a fallen enemy) unless the circumstances & location are pre-approved.

3)      The parable of the good Samaritan is about social justice via redistribution.

4)      It is no longer politically correct to call out from God’s pulpit the unlawful acts of a tyrannical government who is stealing its society blind in order to push their Totalitarian Utopian “redistributive socialist agenda” even though 501C(3) churches are exempt from any hindrance of free speech except for campaigning for a specific political candidate &…

5)      Duty to & Due Diligence in following, spreading and teaching God’s Laws is NO LONGER the core meaning of the parables according to this new age “Socialist Theology” & THEIR written word.

Coming this fall: The parable of the mustard seed: “PLANTING THE TYTHES THAT BIND & GAG”

America’s Beginning: The Law of God as the Basis for Colonial Laws (Bumped)


[By Samuel Willard]


II. Samuel 23:3.

He that Ruleth over men, must be just, Ruling in the Fear of God.


    Whether the ordination of civil government be an article of the law of nature, and it should accordingly have been established upon the multiplication of mankind, although they had retained their primitive [first] integrity–or whether it have only a positive right, and was introduced upon man’s apostasy, is a question about which all are not agreed.  The equity of it, to be sure, is founded in the law natural, and is to be discovered by the light of nature, being accordingly acknowledged by such as are strangers to Scripture revelation; and by Christians it is reducible to the first commandment in the Second Table of the Decalogue; which is supposed to be a transcript of the law given to Adam at the first, and written upon the tables of his heart.  For though, had man kept his first state, the moral image concreated [created] in him consisting in, knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, would have maintained him in a perfect understanding of, and spontaneous obedience to, the whole duty incumbent on him, without the need of civil laws to direct him, or a civil sword to lay compulsion on him; and it would have been the true Golden Age, which the heathen mythologists are so fabulous about.  Yet even then did the all-wise God ordain orders of superiority and inferiority among men, and required an honor to be paid accordingly.  But since the unhappy fall has robbed man of that perfection, and filled his heart with perverse and rebellious principles, tending to the subversion of all order and the reducing of the world to a chaos, necessity requires, and the political happiness of a people is concerned in, the establishment of civil government.  The want of it has ever been pernicious, and attended on with miserable circumstances.  When there was no governor in Israel, but every man did what he would, what horrible outrages were then perpetrated, though holy and zealous Phinehas was at that time the high priest?  and we ourselves have had a specimen of this in the short anarchy accompanying our late revolution.  God’s wisdom therefore, and His goodness is to be adored in that He has laid in such a relief for the children of men, against the mischief which would otherwise devour them, and engraven an inclination on their hearts, generally to comply with it.  But this notwithstanding, men’s sins may put a curse into their blessings, and render their remedy to be not better, possibly worse, than the malady.  Government is to prevent and cure the disorders that are apt to break forth among the societies of men, and to promote the civil peace and prosperity of such a people, as well as to suppress impiety, and nourish religion.  For this end there are to be both rulers, and such as are to be ruled by them: and the weal or woe of a people mainly depends on the qualifications of those rulers, by whom we are to be governed.  Hence that observation, Eccles. 10:16, 17.  Wo to thee, O Land, when thy King is a Child, and thy Princes eat in the morning.  Blessed art thou, O Land! when thy King is the Son of Nobles, and thy Princes eat in due season for strength, and not for drunkenness.  There is then much of God’s kindness or displeasure to be read in His providential disposing of this affair.  God says of them, Hos. 13:11.  I gave them a King in mine Anger.

   We have therefore the character of a Good RULER recommended to us in the Word of GOD, and exemplified in some who deserved that epithere, not only to let men know when GOD favors them with such a blessing, that they may return Him His deserved praise for it, but also, both to instruct such into whose hands it falls, how to demean [humble] themselves in their authority, so as to be a common good, and to direct those unto whose trust it is committed, what manner of persons they ought to introduce, if they would either please GOD, or consult their own and their people’s welfare.

    Such a character we find is given in our text, and we may suppose David intended for an instance of it.

    The words are introduced with greatest solemnity, to give them the deeper impression on the hearts of those that read them, and are concerned in them.  They are the words of David, whom God had exalted to the government over His people Israel, and instructed in His duty–who was God’s own anointed by an extraordinary calling.  And they are his last words, probably not that he ever spoke, but some of his dying words, and the last that he uttered by a peculiar [special] prophetical inspiration, and they were not his own words, but such as the Spirit of God dictated to him, and spoke by him, whereof he was only the instrument of their being committed to record.  They therefore came out of the mouth of the God and Rock of Israel–and surely there must be unspeakable importance in words ushered in with so majestical a preface.  I might here tell you the divers readings, occasioned by the curt expression of the Hebrew text, but I shall not spend time in it, since the general current of interpreters runs the same way with our translation.   And I need but briefly acquaint you that the import or sense of the words is variously understood: some apply them to God Himself, and accordingly read the words as a continued description of Him: he that Ruleth just men; that ruleth men to fear God.   Others apply them to Christ, as typified by David, and take them to be a prophesy of His mediatorial kingdom–and then they read it, shall be just, ruling the fear of God: i.e., Divine instituted worship–pointing to the abrogating of the legal, and bringing in of the Gospel administrations–but then the Type also must be respected, at least under a shadow–and so they suppose that David’s typical government is represented.   Others take them according to the sense of our translation, not to be a prediction but a precept, giving us to understand what manner of persons such are required to be, by the Divine mandate, and that it was left as a rule to them who should succeed.

    In the words there are two things to be observed.

    1.    The subject spoken of, He that Ruleth over men.  He that ruleth:  The word imports one that has any dominion, right, or authority over either persons or things, and is here applicable to all those degrees of men that have any mark of authority upon them, whether the king as supreme, or any ministers under him, under what character or title soever.

    Over men:  The word (Adam) is frequently used to express the commonalty, or people that are to be governed, but however, there is or ought to be a vast difference between the government of men and beasts, though some brutish men may deserve to be treated as brutes.  Man is a reasonable creature, and of the same order of being wtih them that govern him, and ought to be managed accordingly.

    2.    The duty incumbent on such a one:  He must be Just, Ruling in the Fear of God.  Some suppose that the double office of the civil magistrate is here pointed at, who is custos utriusque tabulae, who is to maintain justice towards men, and piety towards God.  Others suppose the latter expression to be exegetical to the former.

    (Just) i.e. one that makes conscience to observe and keep to the rule of righteousness in all his administrations; he ought not to exert his power illimitedly [unlimitedly], and arbitrarily, but in conformity to the Law of God, and the light of nature, for God’s honor, and the promoting of the common benefit of those over whom he bears authority.  And hence,

    (Ruling in the Fear of God.)    And if he does not so, he cannot be just–and by the Fear of God we may either understand a holy, reverential fear, entertained in his heart, which must govern him, or else he will never rule well.  For though every good man will not make a good ruler, yet it is scarce to be believed that a man will acquit this office well without piety.  Or else it [may] be taken metonimically, for the rules of God’s Word, and those particular precepts which direct men how to carry themselves in every station–which are therefore called the Fear of God. because they serve rightly to regulate our fear of Him.  Where it is said (he must) it does not suppose that all who have such authority with them, do so rule; woeful experience too frequently proves the contrary–but that it is their duty, and a matter of great importance for them to attend it.  Hence.


It is of highest consequence, that civil rulers should be just men, and such as rule in the fear of God.

    Where shall we find any one text in Scripture ushered in more remarkably than this?  I may not tarry here to draw out this character in its full dimensions, and give it all its colors, but must only make some brief glances.

    Civil rulers are all such as are in the exercise of a rightful authority over others.  These do not all of them stand in one equal rank, nor are alike influential into government.  There are supreme and subordinate powers–and of these also there are some who have a legislative, others an executive power in their hands, which two, though they may sometimes meet in the same persons, yet are in themselves things of a different nature.  There are Superior Magistrates in Provinces, and such as are of Council with them, and Assemblymen, the representatives of the people.  There are Judges in courts, Superior and Inferior; Justices of the Peace in their several precincts: and in each of these orders there resides a measure of authority.

    Now, that all these may be just, it is firstly required, that they have a principle of moral honesty in them, and swaying of them–that they love righteousness, and hate iniquity–that they be men of truth, Exod. 18:21.  For every man will act in his relation, according to the principle that rules in him–so that an unrighteous man will be an unrighteous ruler, so far as he has an opportunity.

    They must also be acquainted with the rules of righteousness; they must know what is just, and what is unjust, be able men, Exod. 18:21.   For, though men may know and not do, yet without knowledge the mind cannot be good.  Ignorance is a foundation for error, and will likely produce it, when the man applies himself to act–and if he do right at any time, it is but by guess, which is a very poor commendation.

    Again, he must be one that respects the cause, and not the persons, in all his administrations, Deut. 1:17.  Ye shall not respect Persons in Judgment, & etc.  If his affections oversway his judgment at any time, they will be a crooked bias, that will turn him out of the way, and that shall be justice in one man’s case which will not be so in another.

    Furthermore, he must be one whom neither flattery nor bribery may be able to remove out of his way, Deut. 16:19.  Thou shalt not wrest Judgment, thou shalt not Respect Persons, neither take a Gift; and hence he must be one who hates both ambition and covetousness, Exod. 18:21.  Hating   Covetousness; which word signifies, a greedy desire, and is applicable to both the forecited vices–for if these rule him, he will never be a just ruler.

    Finally, he must be one who prefers the public benefit above all private and separate interests whatsoever.  Every man in his place, owes himself to the good of the whole, and if he does not so devote himself, he is unjust–and he who either to advance himself, or to be revenged on another, will push on injurious laws, or pervert the true intention of such as are in force, is an unjust man–and he who is under the influence of a narrow spirit, will be ready to do so, as occasion offers.

    Nor is this justice to be looked upon as separate from the fear of God, but as influenced and maintained by it.  He therefore that Ruleth in the Fear of God, is one who acknowledges God to be his Sovereign, and carries in his heart an awful [awe-filled] fear [respect] of Him–who owns [acknowledges] his commission to be from Him, and expects ere long to be called to give in an account of his managing of it–which makes him to study in all things to please Him, and to be afraid of doing anything that will provoke Him.

    And accordingly, He is a student in the Law of God, and meditates in it Day and Night, making it the rule into which he ultimately resolves all that he does in his place.  We find that in the Old Law, the king was to write a copy of it with his own hand, and to make use of it at all times: Deut. 17:18, 19.

    If he has anything to do in the making of laws, he will consult a good conscience, and what may be pleasing to God, and will be far from framing mischief by a law.  And if he be to execute any laws of men, he will not dare to give a judgment for such a one as directly crosses the command of God, but counts it ipso facto void, and his conscience acquitted of his oath.

    Yes, the Fear of God will make him not to think himself lawless, nor dare to bear witness, by laws and penalties, against sins in others, which he countenances and encourages by living in the practice of himself–but to use utmost endeavors that his own life may be exemplification [exemplar] of obedience, and others may learn by him, what a veneration he has for the laws that are enacted for the good of mankind.

    In a word, he is one that will take care to promote piety as well as honesty among men, and do his utmost that the true religion may be countenanced and established, and that all ungodliness, as well as unrighteousness, may have a due testimony born against it at all times.  So he resolves, Psal. 75:10. all the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.

    It then follows that we enquire of what great moment or consequence it is that these should be such–and there is a three-fold respect in which the high importance of it is to be discovered by us.

    1.    In respect to the glory of God.

    Civil rulers are God’s viceregents here upon earth; hence they are sometimes honored with the title of gods, Psal. 82:6. I have said ye are gods.   Government is God’s ordinance, and those that are vested with it, however mediately introduced into it, have their rightful authority from Him, Prov. 8:15, 16. By me Princes Rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth, and they that are from Him, should be for Him, and ought to seek the honor of Him who is King of kings, and Lord of lords–which they only then do, when they manage their whole interest and power with a design for His glory, and accordingly manage themselves in all their ministrations by the statutes of His kingdom, which none will ever do, but they that are Just, Ruling in the Fear of God.  Righteousness and religion flourishing in these, will be as a torch on a hill, whose light and influence will be vastly extensive: every one will be advantaged to see their good works, and to glorify God for and in them.   Their very example will have the force of a law in it, and win many by a powerful attraction, to the avoiding of sin, and practicing of righteousness.  They will be a good copy, that many will be ambitious to write after–and their faithful administrations will render them a Terror to Evil Doers, and an Encouragement to them that do well, which will advance the very end of government.  Whereas the evil deportment, and ill management of rulers, who are unjust, and void of the fear of God, is an open scandal, and of a more pernicious tendency than the wickedness of others, inasmuch as their example is a discouragement to them that are well disposed, and animates those that are set in their hearts for iniquity, and they are thereby enboldened to show their heads, and to declare their sin as Sodom–hence that remark of the Psalmist, Psal. 12:8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.  Those that would bear their testimony against impiety and debauchery, are frowned on and neglected, and such as would nourish them are countenanced–and either good laws to suppress them are not provided, or they are laid by as things obsolete, and of no service–and thus all abominations come in upon a people as a flood, and the Name of God is woefully dishonored by this means–and hereupon the last and most excellent end of government comes to be frustrated, and what is there that we can conceive to be of greater weight than this?  If this be lost, the glory of such a people is gone.

    2.    In regard to the weal of the people over whom they rule.

    A people are not made for rulers, but rulers for a people.   It is indeed an honor which God puts upon some above others, when He takes them from among the people, and sets them up to rule over them, but it is for the people’s sake, and the civil felicity of them is the next end of civil policy, and the happiness of rulers is bound up with theirs in it.  Nor can any wise men in authority think themselves happy in the misery of their subjects, to whom they either are or should be as children are to their fathers: We have the benefit of government expressed, 1 Tim. 2:2. a quiet Life and a peaceable, in all Godliness and honesty.  And it lies especially with rulers, under God, to make a people happy or miserable.  When men can enjoy their liberties and rights without […] [harassment] and oppression–when they can live without fear of being borne down by their more potent [powerful] neighbors–when they are secured against violence, and may be righted against them that offer them any injury, without fraud–and are encouraged to serve God in their own way, with freedom, and without being imposed upon contrary to the Gospel precepts– now are they a happy people.   But this is to be expected from none other but men just and pious: they that are otherwise, will themselves be oppreneur, and they that are influenced by them, and dependent on them, will add to the grievance.  They that should look after them will do it fast enough: Yes, everyone will usurp a license to do so to his neighbor upon an advantage–and such a people must needs groan under an intolerable burden.  Besides, it is a great truth, that the mercies and judgments of God come upon a people, according as their rulers carry themselves in managing of the trust which God has committed to them.   Just and zealous rulers are men that Stand in the Gap, and keep off judgments from a sinning people; God sought for one such, Ezek. 22:30.   They turn away wrath, when it has made an inroad; so it is recorded of Phinehas that he did, Ps. 106:30., and God is wont to bless such a people, as He did Israel and Judah in the days of David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah–whereas when these fall into such sins as God is provoked at, the people are like to smart for it.   There is such an influence with the prevarications of these men, that, in the righteous judgment of God, those under them suffer grieveously by it.  This the heathen observed in the course of Providence, and made that remark upon it, [….]   Thus David numbers the people, and seventy thousand of the men of Israel die for it, 2 Sa. 24.  Yes, such may be the influence of the mal-administration of rulers, though done without malice, and in an heat of misguided zeal for the people of GOD–as Saul’s act in slaying the Gibeonites is recorded to have been, 2 Sam. 21:2, that the guilt may lie long upon a land, and break out in terrible judgments a great while after, and not be expiated till the sin be openly confessed, and the Atonement sought unto.

    3.    With reference to rulers themselves.

    It is, as we before observed, a dignity put upon them, to be preferred to government over their brethren–to have the oversight, not of beasts, but of men.  But as there is a great trust devolved on them, so there is an answerable reckoning which they must be called unto: And however they are […] [placed] in authority by men, yet GOD, who rules over all, has put them in only durante bene placito: they are upon their good behavior; they are stewards, and whensoever GOD pleases, He will call for a reckoning, and put them out.  GOD sets up, and he pulls down, and He has a respect to men’s carriages in His dealings with them. [* * * * *]  The only sure way for rulers to build up their own houses is to be such in their places as David was, of whom we have that testimony, Psal. 78:71, 72. He brought him to Feed Jacob his People, and Israel his Inheritance.  So he Fed them according to the Integrity of his heart, and guided them by the Skillfulness of his hands.  And although GOD does not always peculiarly put a brand in this world upon impious and unjust rulers, yet there is a tribunal before which they must stand e’re long as other men, only their account will be so much the more fearful, and condemnation more tremendous, by how much they have neglected to take their greater advantages to glorify GOD, and abused their power to His dishonor, by which they had a fairer opportunity than other men.


All that I have to offer by way of improvement, shall be in a three-fold commendation of this TRUTH to us.

   1.    Let me propose it to such in whose hands it is to appoint the persons that are to bear rule over this people, whether for the making of laws to govern by, or the putting of such as are made into execution–whether Counselors, Assemblymen, or Justices of the Peace.  Let this be your directory in exerting of this right. Civil government is seated in no particular persons or families by a natural right, neither has the light of nature, nor the Word of GOD determined in particular, what form of government shall be established among men, whether monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical–much less, who are individually to be acknowledged in authority, and accordingly submitted to.  Nevertheless the holy providence of GOD presides in this matter–sometimes, by a more immediate, and extraordinary pointing to the persons and families, when by revelation He declares His pleasure in it.  Thus was Saul set up over the Kingdom of Israel, and afterwards David was thus chosen of God, and an entail made of the Crown on his posterity, but this way has long since ceased.  Sometimes it is more mediate and ordinary, and that is, either forcible, when God judicially delivers a people up to the will of their enemies, and the conqueror gives laws to, and appoints rulers over, such a people at his pleasure, and they are compelled to accept of them, little to their content–which, as is not eligible, so neither is it wont to be of duration: things violent used not to be permanent.   Or voluntary, which is by the free consent of a people, orderly, and without compulsion establishing the fundamentals of government among themselves, and the methods of introducing persons into authority–which methods are not prescribed in Scripture, but remain points of prudence, and may lawfully be divers here and there.  There are yet general rules which both reason and religion do point men to attend in this case, and the weal or woe of a people do very much depend thereupon.  And as it is a thing very grateful to men to have some hand and consent in the appointment of their own rulers, so they do either make or mar themselves by the using or abusing of such a liberty.   When this power is immediately devolved upon some persons, they have great advantage to procure either the happiness or misery of their people.  Such electors therefore are under the obligation to be very wary in the application or themselves to the nomination of the persons for such a trust.  A good charter [constitution] is doubtless preferable to a bad one; it is a great privilege to be secured from being hurt by any but ourselves–but, let charter privileges be never so excellent, good rulers only can make us happy under them–and if they are not so, we suffer notwithstanding.

    Here then you are told what qualities are to be eyed in those whom you fix your choice upon.  Whatsoever other rules discretion may point to be observed in this affair, yet these must always be of the quorum.  It is true, there are none without their failings, nor can we expect that the best of men will never do amiss, but yet the best are to be preferred, as they that will do it seldomest, and never of [from] design.  They that fear God will be afraid willfully to hurt men; they that are just will do justice, and that can wrong none.   This is it which advantages all other [gifts], whether natural or acquired, to be truly serviceable to the promoting of the welfare of a people: Without this, the more that men have of these, they are so much the more advantaged to do mischief.  There is no misery greater, or less pitied, than what men foolishly bring on themselves, and none will be equally blamed for it, as they who were the guilty occasions of it, or more deserve it.   Choose such men, and then you may expect to be so governed: If you desire that holiness and righteousness may be promoted and encouraged, this is the best stroke that you can give to it; if you have a mind that prophaneness and debauchery should take place, and bear all down, here is the readiest way for it.

    And if you will keep to the rule prescribed in our text, beware of being misguided by special favor, bribery, or faction.

    When persons shall be crowded in, because they are our friends, or have gained a room in our affections, without any respect to their meetness [fitness], but what our blind passions judge of–or that they may have a way to support themselves by government–it is easy to tell what is to be expected.

    When places of trust in government are bought and sold, and he shall have them that will give most for them, we may well conclude that such a people are bought and sold, too, and must only serve to make a good market of.

    When a people are divided into factions, just and wise and good men are renounced and not thought worthy to be made use of, because they favor not the party that can sway, and such as are hotly zealous for the design, are counted, merely by that zeal sufficiently qualified, and to be of all most worthy; this will not promote the public good, but only gain to the one side a little more of advantage to do hurt.

    2.    Let me humbly offer this as a copy for all that either are, or may be, in place of rule, to write after.  Allow me the liberty to say this from GOD, that by whatsoever titles of excellent, honorable, or worshipful, you are known, you not only rule under such as are your superiors on earth, unto whom you are accountable for what you do, but under GOD also, who is your Great SOVEREIGN.  Your authority is from Him, and ought therefore to be for Him, else will you be found false to your trust.  You rule over His subjects, and that not only upon a common account, as the whole world is His kingdom, but one more special, as the people under your watch are the subjects of His GOSPEL KINGDOM: If you do that which is right to them, He will be pleased, but if you should do otherwise, their APPEAL is open to Him, and there is  COURT that will be called, wherein their CAUSE shall be heard, and adjusted.

    Be you entreated, to measure all your administration by this rule: Do all justly and in the fear of God.  This is the way to be blessings in your places, and to be the Blessed of the Lord.   By this course you will make your people a happy people, and you yourselves shall be established.  Thus shall you pull down a blessing on your own heads, and upon the land you dwell in.  This is the way to be the Repairers of breaches, and the Restorers of paths to dwell in.

    To this end, be entreated to take care that religion may flourish; the true fear of GOD, and right administration of His ordinances may be promoted and secured–that righteousness may be done for men, and that iniquity which defiles a land, and pulls down wrath, may be purged away–that drunkenness, and swearing, fornication, and Sabbath-prophanation, and whatsoever hastens the calamity of a professing people, may be duly born witness against.  Let this be your sincere unbiased aim in all that you do.

    Carry this with you, and let it rule in the making of laws; let the Word of GOD be consulted, and the common utility of the subject be designed.  For, though there be not a body of civil laws drawn up in the Scriptures, to which every polity is to be confined, yet there are sufficient general directions, and rules, to be gathered from thence, which may regulate in this affair.

    Take heed of any sinister aims in whatsoever laws do pass: Laws made to strengthen a particular separate interest never did good, but hurt, to a body politic; that which may serve the present turn, may in a little time prove more mischievous, than ever it was advantageous.  Remember, you cannot repeal such laws when you will, or when you have advanced a design with them.  Look then forward to the after-issues.  It will be no small aggravation of our trouble, to be wounded with a shaft of our own making.  Look for changes in a world of mutability, and lay in, as far as innocent prudence may direct, for your own, and your people’s safety.

    Keep to this also in all your administration or application of laws: Maintain a good conscience in it, and let the fear of God, and a principle of justice, make you to lay aside all sinister respects.  Let not persons but things sway you in all your dispensations, and when the case is the same, let the same sentence proceed from you; let neither riches nor poverty turn the scale; neither friendship nor enmity spoil the sentence.  Take no gift in secret to stop or pervert justice, nor misapply your power to take private or personal revenge.  When cases are plain, do not obscure them, and when they are dubious, search them out, and let not flattery or impudence prevail over you, but take His advice in 2 Chron. 16:9. Thus shall you do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart, Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good.

   Remember the cause is God’s, and He will have the calling of it over again, where He will either applaud your fidelity, or condemn your unfaithfulness.

    Do so also in your exemplary conversation.   Do not do that yourselves, which you ought in duty, and oath, to punish to others; embolden not wicked men to trangress by your example, and to excuse themselves upon your account.  That man who will violate the laws which he is to rule by, will soon neglect to excuse them on others, and bring reproach on himself where he does.

    3.    Let it afford matter of instruction to us all.

    Are these the eminent qualifications of good rulers?  It is no small concern that we have in this affair.  It tells us that we ought earnestly to pray to God that we may have such always–and we pray for ourselves when we so do.

    Whatsoever other influence we may have into the appointment of those that are to govern us, there is none that can hinder us of this but ourselves.  God overrules the lot; He determines the hearts of men, and He can make men after his own Heart.  He presides over every election, and if we can prevail with Him by importunate prayer, our business is done.  It is one of the blessings that He will be sought unto for, by the House of Israel.

    It calls us to be thankful to Him for such when He bestows them upon us.  God not a little displays His kindness to a people when it is thus, and expects their gratitude to Him for so comprehensive a mercy.  There is nothing will sooner lose us this benefit than ingratitude.

    Let us encourage them that are such, and that by a cheerful acknowledgment of them, contention under them, and candid interpretation of them.

    We are governed by men of like infirmities with ourselves; wonder not if sometimes they discover something of them, but when we know that their cordial endeavors are to do that which is right, and promote our peaceable and Godly living, let this please us.

    And beware of murmurings; GOD will not take it well of us, and can easily let us know a difference, and it is an observation that seldom misses, That they who are most addicted to, are soonest weary of, changes.

    In a word, let us beware lest we provoke a holy and jealous God to anger so as to give us men of another spirit to rule over us, or to withdraw His Spirit from them that do, and leave them to do things inconvenient.

    Evil doers, and the mal-administrations of good ones, are punishments which GOD does inflict on a people that have provoked Him to anger against them.  God gave Saul to Israel in His wrath, and he left David to number the people because His anger was kindled against Israel.

[* * * * *]

    But if we be a people fearing GOD and keeping of His Commandments, He will delight in us to bless us, and to do us good–and to give us rulers after His own prescription, Just Men, and Ruling in the Fear of God.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle on US Citizenship & Presidential Eligibility; Feb 26, 1888

The following includes citations from Kent, Story & the Immigration & Nationality Acts of 1790, 1795 & 1802. It also mentions US Sec of State Thomas Bayard, whom I have already included in a previous article on the history of the definition of US citizenship. Bayard concluded in 1885 that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because he was on his birth subject to a foreign power, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.

Brooklyn-Daily-Eagle-Sunday-February-26-1888-p-6 Pres eligibility

Judicial Verbicide, An Affront to the Constitution

This should be required reading for all studying US history, our Constitution & US government. It is high time everyone learn and we put these oligarchs in their respective places, that of being under the rule of the people, not the other way around.

Judicial Verbicide- An affront to the constitution

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part II: Shocked, Outraged or Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110th Congress) S. 1348

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if you heard that Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99th Congress) H.R. 2535,

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if Congress had a bill waiting to come out of committee in February of 2008 that would change the citizenship laws of all children born to US parents serving in the military abroad(off US & US Territory soil) so that those children would now become natural born citizen at birth, but instead of following through with it, Congress sets the bill aside and passes a public resolution that holds one former military personnel’s citizenship in higher regard than all the others that are currently serving as if this person had some supremacy over the others. S. 2678

Shocked, Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if there was evidence of a bill introduced to Congress in 2004 to specifically change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ from what the Framers meant it to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. S. 2128

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that there have been numerous attempts to remove the words ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II of the constitution in regards to Presidential qualifications so that ALL anchor babies could someday become President, regardless if their parents are still here illegally? (93rd Congress)HJ Res 325, HJ Res 880, HJ Res 890, HJ Res 896, HJ Res 993, HJ Res 1051, (94th Congress) HJ Res 33, HJ Res 86 (95th Congress) HJ Res 38 (106th Congress) HJ Res 88 (108th Congress) HJ Res 59, HJ Res 67, HJ Res 104 (109th Congress) HJ Res 2,HJ Res 15, HJ Res 42 

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

And what if ALL these prior efforts were retroactive to ALL children born, that are alive today in the US and abroad.

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

Of all these permanently recorded Congressional proposals, the ones that give us more in-depth testimony/summary are H.R. 1380, H.J. Res. 88, S. 2128, S. 1348 & S. 2678.

H.R. 1380 was a bill to amend the Immigration & Nationality Act to grant US national & ‘natural born’ citizen status to certain persons born outside the United States. Alexander’s bill would have granted a child born with dual nationality ‘natural born’ citizenship status and it also addressed the issue of children born to US military personnel overseas. Summing up the bill, Alexander said: 

“My bill would also insert the term ‘natural born’ into section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, thus clearing up any question as to whether a child born abroad as an American citizen qualifies under the Constitution to run for President when he or she grows up.” 

Kennedy’s aka ‘Fast Eddie’s’ bill, S. 1348, went a bit further and it was quite clever of him to slip those 2 little yet powerful words ‘natural born’ into the bill. Reading the summary was quite laughable. This is where Kennedy tries to claim that children(anchor babies) born to nonimmigrant illegal aliens are ‘natural born’, however he does not stop there, he goes on to call adopted children of nonimmigrant illegal aliens as natural born once the aliens acquired the new Z-visa that would have been created by the immigration reform act. 

In 2000, Rep. Barney, I can’t “Frank”ly understand why Ma. keeps reelecting him, introduced H.J. Res. 88, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for Office of the President a person who has been a citizen for twenty years. This is the 1st bill introduced where we have extensive testimony on the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ before the Subcommittee of the Constitution because Barney does [n]ot favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish] to elect. 

Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating: 

“The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.” 

And Mr. Candy is quite right. The qualification was put in place specifically for national security & sovereignty reasons. It was put in place to protect the citizens of the newly formed Republic from ever becoming ‘subjects’ to foreign sovereigns or an all powerful central Monarchy. Mr. Candy has done his homework and thus is the reason I believe that this never made it out of committee. However, let’s review a bit more testimony. 

We shall start with the testimony from an immigrant, Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959. 

“The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution. 

Continuing on about foreign influences & national security, Vazsonyi states: 

“I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it. 

In the Vazsonyi’s written testimony turned over to the committee, Vazsonyi further address the importance of the ‘natural born’ qualification in regards to foreign influences and national security: 

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to ”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake…Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America…Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times. 

Another to testify and submit written testimony was Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama. McDonald starts out by agreeing with Chairman Candy then goes on to cite supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his testimony: 

“Debates about electing the President raged until early September, less than 2 weeks before the Convention adjourned. Then Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame the objections to all earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system. The system was so diffuse that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communications then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure Butler’s proposal included the restrictive language, ”no person except a natural-born citizen…To appreciate the significance of the Constitution’s restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective. Americans of the founding generation were extremely distrustful of executive authority because experience with colonial governors had convinced them that executive power was inherently inimical to liberty, because they felt betrayed by George III, and because they considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism they embraced when they declared their independence in 1776. As a consequence, their revolutionary state constitutions provided minimal executive branches, and the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established no executive arm…By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, difficulties undergone during and after the war for independence had convinced most public spirited men that an energetic national executive was necessary, but they approached the problem cautiously, and at least a third of the delegates to the Convention favored a plural executive in the interest of safety. The others endorsed a single executive, not least because all understood that George Washington, whom everybody trusted, would be the first occupant of the office…But Washington could not serve forever, and the delegates groped almost desperately to devise a suitable way of choosing his successors. The search took up more of the debates than any other subject the Convention faced. Most delegates favored having Congress elect the president, but that would make the executive department dependent upon the legislative unless the president were ineligible for reelection, but ineligibility would necessitate a dangerously long term—six or seven years being the common suggestion. The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad…That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying. As Joseph Storey later explained in his famous commentaries, the phraseology ”cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office and interposes a barrier against . . . corrupt interferences of foreign governments…Now, the question before the subcommittee is not the original purpose of the clause, but whether it has outlived its usefulness. The circumstances that prevailed at the time of the founding have changed. Yet it seems to me on balance that conditions in the foreseeable future warrant a continuation of the caution shown by the framers…Take the matter of the possible corruption in the electoral process. The system is still structurally diffuse, but in practice it might as well be centralized, given modern techniques of communication and the instant portability of money, the most potent corrupting influence. Presidential candidates spend scores of millions of dollars. Just consider the prospective influence of a few billion dollars, a sum well within the means of a number of countries, any one of which, while unwilling to risk such a sum on a natural-born American, might be eager to support a candidate who had been born and raised in their country…The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President’s power as Commander in Chief…Let us consider a few scenarios, starting with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of some countries have occasionally employed agents under deep cover who might not be activated for decades. It is not difficult to imagine such an agent being elected to an office of trust, but a Senator is 1 of 100, and a Representative is 1 of 435. What check is there on a President who is 1 of 1, except for the constitutional restriction?… In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach…In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.” 

Of course the committee heard from 2 other witnesses for the progressive view; one for adoptive parents of foreign children and the other a civil rights activist for immigrants. You are welcome to read their bloviating testimony online as it is not relevant to defining ‘natural born’. 

After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in 2004, a bill to define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. 

Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that: 

“There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means. 

And then concludes by stating: 

“This bill ensures that children born abroad to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream…they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president.” 

I was taken aback by Nickles proclamation that Congress had never defined ‘natural born citizen’. Had he just gone to the congressional records from 1866, when the 14th Amendment was drafted and subsequently ratified, he would have found this from Rep. John A. Bingham:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

And yet again repeating myself, we know that the term ‘natural born citizen’ exists exclusively in one place in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section I, Clause V:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Sen. Inhofe made note of the repealed Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1790 as some sort of fact that Congress had defined what ‘natural born’ meant, as if it has always pertained to naturalized citizens or citizens by statute, and uses the argument that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress, per the 1790 Act, has the authority to make such interpretation. And let it be noted, Inhofe per his speech, is the grandfather of an internationally adopted child, thus did not have pure intentions when signing onto this bill. 

There was no objection, the bill was recorded and met the same demise of all previous other attempts to alter presidential qualifications. 

All these attempts, all these secret bills quietly kept out of earshot of the public at large, are verified proof that Congress has for decades been trying to usurp the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation further risking our sovereignty & national security. An agenda that Washington warned about in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

Part I: The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

Part III: the conclusion. I purposely held back the review & summary of S. 2678 as it pertains directly to S. Res. 511 and including it here would spill the beans so to speak. But rest assured, it will be published no later than Thursday evening.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher


Copyright 2009

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part III: McCain & S. Res. 511 Were Meant To Sanitize Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President [correction/important addition in blue]

Leo, this ones for you. “Thank You” for your dedication that lit a fire underneath me while educating me at the same time.

With persistence & perseverance, a researcher will inevitably come across the “ONE” document that brings full circle his/her research to a specific conclusion. Sometimes the conclusion backs the researcher’s theory and sometimes it does not.

I give you my final research to judge for yourself. Parts I & II with all the Congressional actions to eliminate ‘natural born’ from Article II, Sec I Clause V of the Cosntitution from 1973 forward can be found here.

Gasoline & Fire Do Not Mix

This is not a new concept in DC, yet it would seem these days that it has become the norm. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t as in the case of S. 2678, a bill [To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become president].

The bill was sponsored by Sen. McCaskill (MO) and introduced in the Senate on February 28, 2008. After having been read twice, the bill was then referred the Judiciary committee. On February 29thSen. Obama (IL) signed on as a co-sponsor and then on March 3rdSen. Menendez (NJ) & Sen. Clinton (NY) were added as co-sponsors to the bill. By March 4thSen. McCaskill & team had recruited a Republican, Sen. Coburn (OK) to join the ticket to usurp the constitution.  

Now, this particular bill was also 2 fold, its 1st point was to declare all children born to military ‘natural born’ citizens. The 2nd mission of the bill was to expand on the defininition of ‘natural born’ by including the following which is what jumped right out at me:

“Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.”(emphasis added)

So if we take McCaskill’s words shall include’ and the singular use of ‘citizen  we can conclude that Congress was aware of the Congressional history of the term ‘natural born’ and was looking for an out for McCain. But Obama, seizing his opportunity to ride the wave, rushed right over to McCaskill’s office and requested to be assigned as a co-sponsor of the legislation the very next day. Or was McCaskill the ‘fall gal’ all along? Did Obama & the Democratic elite know ahead of time of Obama’s ineligibility problem and used McCaskill or did she sign on to the corruption of her own volition? This we may never know.

Beginning sometime in 2007, the blogosphere was a buzz with a former Washington Post article from 1998  titled “McCain’s Panama Problem’ that had resurfaced and the search into the Panama Canal history took off at rocket speed. Questions regarding McCain’s eligibility continued to plague McCain & the RNC. The public announcement of S. 2678 on February 28, 2008 was like pouring gasoline onto an already burning fire.

A quick search of Internet archives shows that the issue was quite a ‘hot’ topic  however I was not paying too much attention to it at the time which I will forever regret. But someone else was paying very close attention. A certain someone, who has remained very close to Obama since his years at Harvard, was quietly working the backrooms of college campuses for the Obama campaign.

Obama’s “Tribe”

On January 16, 2007, Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times breaks with the scoop  that [L]aurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, calls Obama “one the two most talented students I’ve had in 37 years in teaching…When I look at my kids and grandkids and ask what makes me hopeful about the future-one thing is Barack Obama.]

Now, while this is not a full out in the open endorsement, it does give the initial opening for a future endorsement which seems to come in June of 2007  when Tribe appears in a campaign TV ad  for Obama, that kicked off in Iowa. Also in June, Tribe gives an interview to The Harvard Crimson  in which he states that although [h]e would back Hillary if she won the Democratic Party’s nomination, he has always championed Obama’s cause.]

On September 17, 2007 the Chicago Tribune publishes  an extensive list of Obama’s Policy team and listed under domestic policy is ‘Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law Professor). Then on November 19, 2007 MSNBC reports  that the first Obama campaign mailing had been sent out to NH voters and inside the mailer is a quote from Tribe. In addition to the endorsement in the campaign mailers, Tribe spent quite a bit of time that November touring New Hampshire campaigning for Obama.

Moving on into December of 2007, Tribe’s former endorsement is officially listed at Obama’s my.barackobama.com  by Eddie Lee, Obama Staff.

For some readers, this is where you may want to switch from coffee to a stiffer drink.

The “Fix” Is In

On January 31, 2008 Professor Tribe gives a persuasive talk  with the main argument on electability. In his talk, Tribe openly states that

he [c]onsidered it highly probable the John McCain will be the Republican candidate] and also that [h]e is convinced that Hillary is unelectable]. Tribe finishes his persuasive by talking about the importance of voting in the primaries, the importance that a candidate not win by a small margin and how there was no room for complacency.]

This pretty much wraps it up for me as to why Obama signed onto S. 2678 so quickly and why the wheels shifted so swiftly from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511. With Tribe already on Obama’s policy team, you can bank on the fact that discussions were already had that S. 2678 would have to be resubmitted as an amendment to the constitution, however there was a much swifter and less ovbious way to proceed that would sanitize Obama’s eligibility problem through McCain. With the help of the 2 most prominent/influential constitutional lawyers known to the DC circuit, they would use a non-binding, but publically accepted backdoor method called a Resolution.

Already laying out the background on Laurence Tribe, we must now look at Theodore Olson. Olson was born in Chicago; however he grew up in the same liberal stomping grounds of the San Francisco valley as Tribe. He received his law degree at Berkley in 1958 & is a member of The Federalist Society. While serving under Reagan & Bush Jr., Olson championed conservative & constitutional causes, though his actions out of public office lean more to the liberal progressive causes. After retiring from Solicitor General in 2004, Olson returned to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher at their DC office. Olson had previously worked for Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles (beginning in 1965) as an associate where he eventually made partner. Soon after the 2008 elections, Olson jumps the conservative ship & joins David Boies, (lead council for Gore in Bush v. Gore & an invited guest to Olson’s nuptials to Booth in Napa Valley, Ca in 2006) in Boies’s lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 in California.

Thus the question begs to be answered, why would a member of the Federalist Society, co-write an analysis that is in complete conflict to what the Federalist Society’s review of natural born citizen is? Is his membership for decoration purposes only? Maybe, however I believe Olson finally released his inner ‘liberal civil rights activist’ that has been pent up for decades.

Note must also be taken that Olson’s wife, Lady Booth is very active in the liberal activist realm & was a staunch supporter of Obama during the 2008 campaign. Thanks to commenter ‘royll’ for bringing this to my attention.

The Two Views Become One

As I stated earlier, the change from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511, a resolution [R]ecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen] moved curiously swiftly.

I will also not go into all the ‘whereas’, as I have already covered this. You can read them here, along with my commentary. What I will do is pick a couple of them apart that pertain to Olson & Tribe’s analysis, as well as the testimony/analysis of Olson & Tribe. I will also place special emphasis on Tribe who is on record as officially endorsing Obama as well as a current member of Obama’s domestic policy team well before S. Res. 511 was introduced. I do believe Olson’s part, for the most part, was pure decoration for the benefit of the GOP to get them to go along with the scheme. I’ll let you judge for yourself by reading this article from the ‘World Socialist Website’. There could be no better cover-up, than to put a so called conservative constitutional lawyer who is loathed by the liberal left, but also happens to be a closet liberal civil rights activist in bed with a progressive one.

First let’s begin with the written analysis/testimony that was permanently recorded in the congressional record on April 30, 2008 but was officially sent to the Senate on April 8ththrough the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born’ citizen & that Congress has never given a definituion either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39th Congress records of 1866 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:

“Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee…”

So basically what they did was take Brennan’s dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:

“Our primary task must be to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century…”

And there we have it, that big ‘it’s my constitutional right to be president some day’ analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!

So now that we have an initial grasp of the view of the Constitution these two men hold, let’s look further into their true interpretation of who they believed the Framers to be. You know, those men who were our founding fathers and who also fought a bloody war. A war to end America’s ties to an all powerful Monarchy and put in the hands of the people, the power to govern themselves by drafting a Constitution & establishing a Republic.

Next, Tribe & Olson brings up the subject of common law at the time of the founding and also reference Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). If this surprises you, then you have not been paying attention because it is the premise to all their legal analysis. Tribe has written, lectured extensively, as well as teaches in depth Blackstone’s English Common Law as the guide to interpreting our Constitution. In the analysis sent to the Senate Judiciary, they write:

“These sources ALL confirm that the phrase ‘natural born’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within the nation’s territory and allegiance.” (emphasis added)

Oh, really?

Tribe & Olson go on to mis-cite the specific part of Wong Kim Ark they are relying on for their conclusion, and they also do not cite the case Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 which we know for a fact, from extensive research done by Leo Donofrio & team, was the guiding case for the Wong Kim Ark decision.

“In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”.  And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.  The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

 ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” (Emphasis added)

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of  natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor,they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama.  As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Now, why, would the Supreme Court be relying on the Law of Nations if in fact, as Tribe & Olson claim, the Framers relied on English common law. The same law that kept them oppressed while under the rule of the English Monarchy. The fact is they didn’t. In the 1st commentaries on the Constitution written by Supreme Court Justice Wilson (who was appointed by George Washington, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and was as member of the Continental Congress), Wilson specifically refers to the law of nations as the guiding force behind our Constitution and it interpretation.

“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Clear, concise & truthfully spoken. This is also one of the most inspirational commentaries on our Constitutional law & patriotism I have read. If you have not read James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791) as of yet, I encourage you to do so.

So, putting Wilson’s ‘Lectures on Law’ to task, we can say with confidence that Tribe is completely misguided and flat out wrong when he claimed:

“British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ‘natural born Subjects’ were also ‘natural-born Subjectsto all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever…The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy…”(emphasis added)

For supposed constitutional scholars, Tribe & Olson really miss the mark on this one. They also make reference that we are a democracy which is just an out right lie. The Framers wrote a Constitution for a Republic with citizens as sovereigns who are superior to the government institution itself, not Subjects to some Democracy who are ruled by a central government put in place by mob rule and where individual rights are only those given to you by the government. Democracies rarely last, they either give cause for revolution or they ascend to a Monarchy or Dictatorship.

Hitting More Pay Dirt 

In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory  written by Professor Lawrence B Solum  of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;…]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of  ‘natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

Thus, wrapping up on British Justice Blackstone, I refer you to another writing of his that pertains to what was on the minds of our founding fathers when they declared independence from the king:

“The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.”

To believe that the Framers held onto this logic and thus held onto the common law definition of subjects for the newly emancipated citizens, would be to believe there was never a bloody revolution to escape it. The truth is Blackstone was a Kings Knight. He loved his dear England and was faithful to the end and to the Monarchy who he adored just as much. Blackstone was also noted for contradicting himself, which I believe is the reason for such confusion in interpreting his commentaries.

Moving on to the real truth of which law guided the Framers, we turn to another early Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, who was also the main founder of Harvard law School. Story gives a very distinct conclusion to the Law of Nation & the law of nature as the guiding force behind the Framers definition of ‘natural born’ citizen when he wrote this of the qualifications for President in one of his early commentaries.

Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis mine)

Story specifically calls the founding fathers ‘naturalized’ citizens, and rightly so.

Tribe & Olson’s analysis is all over the place. They bring in the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and in light of Wilson’s 1st ‘Commentary on the Constitution’; we can put to rest the reason as to why that Act was repealed. Congress was not invested with the powers of declaring anyone a ‘natural born’ citizen. The only powers regarding citizenship they had were those of naturalizing alien immigrants. A ‘natural born’ citizen is clearly defined in the laws of nations as well as the Congressional records of 1866.

“Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following: § 212. Citizens and natives: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” 

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”(emphasis added) 

Tribe & Olson also refer to several statutes pertaining to citizenship, however, the Constitution trumps statutes, thus using them to define ‘natural born’ citizen is grossly incompetent in light of all the historical and legal references that date back to the revolution. Leo Donofrio gives an excellent run down  of how McCain is a citizen by statute and according the most current version of the US Foreign Affairs Manual, it has yet to be determined whether children born abroad are eligible for President.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

In one of Leo’s latest articles  on McCain he wrote:

“According to the birth certificate  and COLB  of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon.  The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that.  Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

There is a birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper  which states that McCain was born in the “submarine base hospital”.  I don’t know what the submarine base hospital is.”  

Permit me to dispel  that Panama newspaper birth bit, Leo. It would seem that there is NO record of John McCain in the August 1936 birth registry of the Canal Zone.

panama records of birth for Coco Solo












Nope, no index record there, but I’ll bet you can find it in the August birth registry of the Republic of Panama since McCain was actually born off base in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama. The media propaganda machine also covered for McCain by claiming that it was a clerical mistake that McCain is not listed in the August 1936 Canal Zone index registry. And as if that wasn’t enough, they tried to claim a different doctor than the one that signed the birth certificate, actually delivered McCain. Thanks to the lame stream propaganda media who stepped right up and said the visible, certified official records are wrong, the general public was kept in the dark as to the truth.

This also goes to show that it doesn’t matter how decorated you are and how many years your family has served honorably, eventually those who spend too much time in politics will fall to the intrigue and corruption of power.

So what does this all have to do with Obama?

Olson & Tribe conclude their analysis by reiterating their delusional rhetoric and false reporting of Kansas & Arizona as just territories. Kansas & Arizona were Sovereign Territories that had been operating under the complete law of the U. S. Constitution and jurisdiction of the United States and thus their citizens were under complete jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States and were considered for all legal and political purposes to be the same as that of statehood citizens.

“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

Olson & Tribe consistently refer back to the 14th Amendment & its interpretation that a citizen born to an immigrant is none the less a citizen and therefore under English common law, the founders considered them to be same as a ‘natural born’ citizen in all sense of the words. They did this purposely to confuse the issue knowing that Congress never really reads anything, anyways. However, I think I can confidently claim that I, along with the help of some great patriots out there, have blown that smoke filled theory right back where it came from…right up the ‘you know what’ of the liberal progressive ideologues who believe we are Subjects to some all powerful central government.

We are NOT Subjects, Nothing could be further from the TRUTH and the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS!

Thus it was not surprising to find this recent review  of Laurence Tribe’s most current thesis ’The Invisible Constitution’

“Tribe’s legal philosophy is antithecal to the original intent of the Constitution’s Framers and is insufficient as a legitimate theory of Constitutional Law. At its foundation, Tribe’s ideology is secular, Marxist, socialist legal philosophy.”

Then put Theodore Olson next to Tribe in a Senate Judiciary hearing and what you have is the ultimate ‘white-wash’ of political corruption.

Therefore, with all the above evidence, I conclusively report that:

‘Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or ANY Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving their country’s President; (emphasis added)

Sorry, busted.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;

Again, busted.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

Also BUSTED by McCain’s own original vital records and the index birth records kept by the Canal Zone.

Was it a coincidence that Obama quickly signed onto S. 2678? I think NOT!

Was it also a coincidence that Tribe gave that political persuasive talk on Jan. 31, 2008? I think NOT!

And it certainly was no coincidence that Tribe was selected to co-write the analysis that would sanitize McCain & Obama’s ineligibility. After all, persuasive speeches seem to be his forte’. You had just better make sure you are wearing pretty high boots if you ever attend one.

And as if all this is not enough to prove that our government and our election process is totally corrupt to the core, Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party) was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, MN, NJ, NY & VT.

There are 535 members of Congress who know the truth. Will they step up to the Constitution and hold themselves accountable by returning the election to the people so that we may have a legitimate presidential election in which we have eligible candidates to vote for?

I’m not holding my breath for that to happen because I do not think there is a true Patriotic spine in the lot.

 What I will do is make a guarantee to keep researching and expose every speck of corruption I dig up.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Brave Service men & women who serve honorably and are NOT afraid to uphold their oath of office and defend this great nation from enemies foreign & DOMESTIC.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher


Copyright 2009

McCain’s Law : Updated

“When applying the law the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law.” 

John Sidney McCain III


Mario Apuzzo puts out a rather compelling argument that according to Vattel, McCain could be classified as a ‘natural born’ citizen. Let’s take a look…

Under Sec. 217 of The Law of Nations transcribed by Vattel is reference to children born out of country but in the armies of the state. Apuzzo gives much weight to the phrase “reputed born”. What does this mean in legal terminology? I do not know, I am not a lawyer, and Apuzzo gives no definition of it (of which there are several for it at the time of the adoption of the constitution) in his article that he uses as the basis for his claim.

What I do know is that in the current FAM (foreign affairs manual), it clearly states that all children born in the Canal Zone, as well as the Republic of Panama are citizens by statute, Act of August 4, 1937, Sec. 1, 50 Stat. 558, codified at INA: 

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1403

§ 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

303(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

303(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

We also know for fact that McCain’s birth certificate was filed with the Panama Railroad Company. If the natural born citizen were to apply, McCain’s birth would have been directly recorded with the permanent resident state of his parents at the time he was born.

As McCain said, judges have to faithfully apply the law that is already in place. Policies and personal choices are not to be legislated from the bench, therefore my conclusion of McCain’s ineligibility to be President stands as reported.

Well documented in Part II of my series ‘The Congressional Natural Born Citizen”, McCain had known of this problem decades before the 2008 election. There were numerous attempts to amend Article II as well as change the INA codified laws. They ALL failed and for good reason. Those in Congress, who held the gavel at the time, knew of the potential threat to our national security if the qualifications for President & Commander in Chief were open to those with dual citizenship.

As much as I sympathize with those who admire McCain for his service to our country (I am one of them), that admiration CAN NOT usurp the law. By trying to do so puts those people in the same corrupt circle of thinkers who pick & choose law at will for their personal benefit.

McCain has brought dishonor to himself by his own volition. It was his choice not ours and he will have to live with it every day for the rest of his life. He will also have to live with the irreparable harm that resulted from his willingness to skirt the law for personal political power which is in complete conflict of the opening quote of this article.

Leo weighs in regarding a request I had made to him regarding this issue. This response pertains to the UIPA requests that have been sent to Hawaii and Hawaii’s  responses thus far:

[ed. … I will post a report next week which makes the truth clear and which establishes that an AG Opinion was rendered and is now being kept secret by the AG – and his office has personally informed me that they are invoking attorney client privilege thereto. The general public is now being guided away from paying attention to that AG opinion because the opinion must be disclosed by law. And if they can make the public lose focus then they might be able to keep the report hidden. If the public makes enough noise and does not lose focus on the AG report, then it is VERY hard for the AG to not cough it up. So, if you all want to see the AG opinion then don’t fall for the Seussian hooplah telling you that it does not exist. It does exist.]

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

This will be a multi-part series that focuses on Congresses knowledge of the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ and how they have purposely side stepped the constitution & the intent of the founding fathers regarding US citizenship by using ‘baby steps’ to achieve their ultimate goal:

“An Amendment to the Constitution to make eligible for the office of President any person who has been a US citizen for (X) amount of years”

I use (X) because there are several versions, all with differing views as to the number of years the citizen must be a continual resident prior to running for office.

‘Hope-n-Change’ Floats 

“The written Constitution ‘floats’ in a vast and deep – and, crucially, invisible – ocean of ideas, propositions, recovered memories, and imagined experiences…The Invisible Constitution is not simply a mask for imposing a particular ideology on the Constitution, which is what people sometimes think.”…”What I am hoping is that people will come to see that we’re all engaged in the same game and that the political reality of the Constitution, which is not confined to the written text, is an equal-opportunity reality.”

Laurence H. Tribe (The Invisible Constitution) 2008

This folks is the view of every liberal progressive ideologue on capital hill today.

Laurence Tribe’s roots to the progressive movement span decades. Tribe graduated from Harvard Law in 1966, immediately clerked for Trobiner in the Ca Supreme Court for a year, then moved to DC where he clerked for Stewart for a year. Not having any real world experience, Tribe then joins Harvard as an assistant professor in 1968 and after 4 years, he received his tenure from Harvard in 1972.

Sounding familiar? Let’s continue on…

Laurence Tribe is the co-founder of the liberal activist “American Constitution Society”, a law and policy organization formed to breed and pit young activist lawyers, like himself, against originalism and constitutional jurisprudence. Tribe is considered as a demigod at Harvard and the cast of characters surrounding him over the years sounds like a who’s who of liberal activism progressive style. We have Aharon Barach, chief justice of Israel who believes in letting unrepentant genocidal terrorists roam free; Doris Kearn Goodwin, liberal revisionist historian; Akhil Amar, liberal law professor at Yale; Nina Totenberg, liberal legal correspondent for NPR. Most notably in Tribe’s cast of contributing characters, we find none other than Cass Sunstein, Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) & Barack Obama. The one I shall take note of today is Barack Obama.

While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his book – “Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes” (1990) and in turn, during Obama’s candidacy, Tribe did a political commercial congratulating Obama and publically supporting the Obama campaign.

During the campaign last year, Ellis Washington wrote this of Tribe:

‘Tribes judicial philosophy would be right up there with the most radical leftists of the Supreme Court, like Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and many other enemies of the original intent of the framers.”

Tribe’s Congress

Tribe wrote his initial commentary on the Constitution in 1978 call “American Constitutional Law”. With this initial commentary, Tribe ascended to the throne and since has been the liberal’s commandant in their efforts to over throw capitalism and our Republic’s Judeo Christian heritage through backdoor congressional activist legislation.

In 1987, Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote a review of Scalia’s book, A Matter of Interpretation. Scalia’s book expounds on the ‘textualist’ theory and his qualities as a judicial ‘statesman’. Neither of which is Tribe.

Greve writes that Tribe is [n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before and that [T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes.

Enter Liberal Left Election Activism Through Legislation

Of Tribe’s most notable influences on congressional committee hearings are those during the Nixon & Clinton impeachment hearings, The Gore/Bush election & most currently the judiciary committee hearings on S. Res. 511:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

There are many more areas where tribe’s activist views have been sought to pass radical legislation, however, for the purposes of this series, we shall stick to the topic at hand.

I can not say with certainty when it all began; but the legislative moves to forever redefine/remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ as it exists in the founding documents of the United States of America, have been going on far longer than I had thought.

Not only have they moved to redefine/remove it from the Constitution, they have actively been bestowing ‘natural born’ citizenship status on individual citizens for decades through ‘private’ laws. 

A search of Thomas.gov revealed that since 1973. Congress has bestowed ‘natural born’ citizenship 13 times through this ‘private law’ practice. I was only able to retrieve the basics, as I assume, the fact that they are ‘private law’ bills, the contents are sealed, and therefore not available to the public. This is as specific as they get, no congressional committee minutes are available through Thomas.gov:

Title: A bill for the relief of Phillip Harper. Became Private Law No. 98-39 (1983) 

In 1987, a bill was introduced which was entitled, ‘The overseas American Children’s Human Right’s Act of 1987’. The summary concludes that children born outside of the US to mixed parents (one being an alien) shall be a U.S. citizen at birth and then goes on to grant US national and natural born citizen status to any person born, whether in or out of wedlock, to a US citizen parent outside the United States.

This bill as far as I can tell never made it out of committee. A similar bill appeared in 1989 that met the same demise.

Were these bills a precursor for the currently behind closed committee door activism in Congress? Were they Congresses initial ‘baby steps’ towards the ultimate destruction of the ‘natural born’ citizen?

From 1973 – current, attempts have been made to remove ‘natural born’ from Article II of the Constitution. Additional attempts have also been made to formally define/change the meaning of ‘natural born’, therefore opening the door for any and all citizens to be able to run for President, regardless of their type of citizenship.

Committee minutes from the earlier days are nil, thus lending me to believe no merit was given to the early attempts. However, the sponsor of the earliest 6 amendments from 1973-77 was Rep. Jonathan B. Bingham (NY). Jonathan Bingham was a Connecticut Bingham and I do not know at this time if there is a direct relation to Rep. John A Bingham who was one of the founders of the 14th Amendment that left this famous quote which is recorded in congressional records for all time:

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Coincidence? I think not. To believe that a representative with the same family surname, a surname of a long historical list of politicians dating back to the revolution, was not aware or had studied the congressional records during the drafting of the 14th Amendment would be naïve.

These early attempts, that are still available to be retrieved online at Thomas.gov, also coincide with the appearance of Laurence Tribe onto the scene that had this to say about natural born citizen:

“The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen’ for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy”

Well, had the Framers actually adopted a Constitution for a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic, Tribe may have been right. This is also just one tiny example of his influence on Congress over the past several decades of Constitutional abuse.

From 1973 – current, there have been 15 silent secret attempts to remove the words ‘natural born’ from the Constitution and replace them with just citizen. It is the ideology of the leftist-liberals that the words ‘natural born’ are discriminatory and therefore keep naturalized citizens and those born with dual citizenship from their imaginary right to be president.

Part II to come: Breaking down of the most current secret legislation proposed from 2000-08.

Part III will focus specifically on S. Res. 511 and Tribe’s extensive influence in Congresses cover-up of ineligible presidential candidates that continues to this day.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher


Copyright 2009

The Calendar – Updated and Expanded (Mirrored)

Torah Family

Published on Apr 18, 2019

This teaching brings the ever confusing and intimidating topic of the Biblical calendar down to size to help everyone gain a better understanding. This updated and expanded version not only details the simplicity of the Biblical calendar but also explains why there are various views of the calendar today. While we respect the multiple aspects of the calendar, this will show where and why we differ with them.

Context, and Calendars, and Why it Matters

How we read and study matters, especially when it comes to law, whether civil or religious, and especially where it pertains to the Bible. If we have not been trained to read and study in context, all too often, we can find ourselves creating a whole new tradition or law out of thin air, a tradition or law that is not actually supported by what we had just read and studied, but one that is of the nature of an unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’.

Imagine yourself listening to a seminar or bible teaching, either live or recorded, and thinking to yourself, ‘that sounds plausible’ and as soon as the seminar/teaching is over you begin the task to prove what you just heard is really true. You go to your computer & search the internet for any and all available thesis on the matter and if need be, you go to your local library and seek out available books that may contain further evidence to support what you heard, and not stopping there, you might also purchase some books because you know they will aid you with other studies and these books would make great additions to your personal home library.

Now the anticipation really sets in, because if what you heard is really true you want to share it with others, so let the journey begin!

Having now in your possession the material to read & study, whether a book or a thesis, you begin with the oldest dated resources you have now acquired on the subject, so to catalogue the journey in chronological order in hopes that it will help our understanding. The first is a thesis with only four chapters and so we begin by reading the opening, then you read the synopsis & say, ‘hey, just by reading this opening you already know what the conclusion is and this thesis is then catalogued as supporting the ‘plausibility’. Next you take a quote from chapter one that is cited in the synopsis of chapter one and mark that as witness #1. Then after that is recorded, you go to the actual chapter, find the quote and mark that as witness #2, ‘Voila!’, you now have two witnesses that you have included in the research paper you are writing on the subject as being two separate witnesses.

I kid you not, this happens more often than you might think!

Does anyone see the folly in this type of research? If not, they should because this is the exact scenario by which the majority is deceived into running down the road of destruction and unrighteousness.

Also, this type of scenario is how ‘traditions’ are born and the more that follow the tradition, the harder it is for another to bring the actual facts of the subject out into the light of day, for ‘tradition’ is a great ‘undertaker’ whose creators and their followers go to great lengths to make sure that the truth that was buried stays buried, and more often than not, the burial was done in ignorance and not out of any sense of malice.

I have witnessed this many times. A person, say a professor, a church leader, a reporter, or even an elected official will quote from a Supreme Court ruling and announce, this is what the court ruled, when in truth, the actual ruling said the exact opposite and then what happens? The gullible public at large, because they are too busy to take the time to prove whether what they heard was true or not, they believe the falsehood. My favorite example of this is Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916) which is one of the most egregious traditions born in the 20th century by an unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’ that came by way of many who parsed a sentence in Chief Justice White’s opinion to support their conclusion that the unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’, that was the reason the case came to be in the first place, was and is true. The quote they use is:

“….. the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation–that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.” [end quote]

However, the a main part of the context regarding the ruling of the court begins in the very next sentence of that opinion written by Chief Justice White that the entire court agreed with:

“And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear….”[end quote]

And so what happened in this case? The unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’ that the court ruled as an ‘erroneous assumption’ became tradition that is enforced to this day unless one is learned in the truth and knows how to legally apply it so that the earnings which Elohim provided them to be used for His purpose are actually used for His purpose rather than blindly handing over to Caesar what rightly belongs to Elohim.

This is also how it is with the Word of Elohim, the Holy Scriptures. Many take a parsing from here and a parsing from there, and, ‘Voila!’, they have just created a new tradition that has no actual foundation in His Word of Truth, His Holy Scriptures, and the more they get to believe and follow their new tradition the greater the name they make for themselves.

Take for example Exodus 12 verses 1 & 2..

And YHWH Elohim spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, ‘this is the beginning of months for you, it is the first month of the year for you.’

There are no other instructions regarding the yearly calendar or how months are determined spoken at this time, His Word is utterly silent of any further details, so what does the context reveal to us?

#1: The matter was spoken to two people, i.e., two witnesses.
#2: Whatever month it was that YHWH Elohim spoke these words, it was a month on the Egyptian calendar that the Israelites were already familiar with.
#3: It was only the first month on the calendar that was at issue, correction only needed to be made as to which month on the calendar the Israelites were already practicing was the actual 1st month of His appointed calendar for the preservation of His appointed times on earth.

As to #1, it was commanded in Numbers 10:10 that the sons of Aaron were to blow the trumpet at the beginning of each month, and again, by the time this command is given, not a jot or tittle of instruction was given as to how one was to determine the beginning of the month.

Now as to #2, there is a plethora of research done on ancient Egyptian calendars & the most exhaustive source I have found on this subject is compiled in the book “Ancient Egyptian Science Volume II: Calendar, Clocks, and Astronomy“. In this book, which contains the research of several highly esteemed archaeological researchers on this subject, we read:

Like all ancient people, the ancient Egyptians used a lunar calendar, but unlike their neighbors they began their lunar month, not with the first appearance of the new crescent in the west at sunset but rather with the morning when the old crescent of the waning moon could no longer be seen just before sunrise in the east. Their lunar year divided naturally, following their seasons, … because 12 lunar months are on the average 11 days short of the natural year, a 13th or intercalary month was introduced so as to keep the seasons in place.

and later we read:

The first important bit of evidence was an inscription discovered and published by Brugsch first in 1862 and again in 1864. It can be translated as follows: “He (Khons, the God of the Moon) is conceived on the Feast of psdntyw (i.e., on the first day of the lunar month); he is born on the Feast of the Month (i.e., on the feast of the Second Day of the Month); he comes to maturity on the Feast of the Half-Month (i.e., on the Feast of the Full Moon or Fifteenth Day of the Month).” This seems quite good evidence that the Egyptians conceived that the first day of the month was the day of invisibility of the first crescent, that the second was the day of first visibility of the new crescent, and that the fifteenth day was the day of the full moon. And indeed Brugsch drew the conclusion that Parker was later to develop more fully, namely, that the month started with the first day of invisibility of the crescent, and the second day marked “the first visible apparition of the lunar disk”. He notes that a “host of religious texts” supports his interpretation of this passage.

This is what the Israelites were practicing, it was the monthly calendar they were familiar with and it is a monthly calendar that is supported by the pattern given to us in Genesis 1 which I will come back to later, for now let’s move on to point #3.

Next, looking at the evidence put forth by those who took a parsing from here and another from there and who magically made one witness become two, this sect of the lunar-solar waxing crescent calendar followers believe and teach what all the other nations surrounding Egypt were practicing, thereby, setting aside the context established in Exodus 12:1-2 for the sake of tradition. Here is the “lead teacher’s” ONLY explanation with a cited reference source that is in reference to Psalms 81:3 “Blow the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day“:

It is likely that kesah is related to the Aramaic word “Kista” and the Assyrian word “Kuseu” which mean “full moon” (see Brown-Drive-Briggs page 490b) [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Assyrian are all Semitic languages and often share common roots]. This fits perfectly with the description of Keseh as the day of the Hag since two of the three Pilgrimage-Feasts (Hag HaMazot and Hag HaSukkot) are on the 15th of the month, which is about the time of the full moon.

First of all, …it is likely? And second, …is related to the Aramaic? Is this how a traditional Hebrew scholar would speak when presenting their evidence? Not in any personal experiences I have had. They all are very concise and never propose their understanding with terms such as ‘likely’ or ‘may be related to’. The witness this supposed scholar presented is an outright and, might I add, purposeful effort in obfuscation!

So why the obfuscation? Because if he gave the Talmud Tractate number on the subject, he would soon be found to be lacking support for his unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’ of a waxing crescent moon as being the new moon. This is revealed in the rabbinic court’s ruling on Psalm 81:3, a Psalm which concerns the first day of the seventh month which is an annual appointed time of YHWH Elohim commonly called the Feast of Trumpets, or in Jewish circles, Rosh Hashanah.

“The first of Tishri is the New Year’s Day for ordinary years.” For what purpose is this rule? Answers R. Zera, to determine the equinoxes (and solstices); and this agrees with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who says that the world was created in Tishri; but R. Na’hman says (it is the new year) for divine judgment, as it is written [Deut. xi. 12]: “From the beginning of the year till the end of the year,” i.e., at the beginning of the year it is determined what shall be at the end of the year. But whence do we know that this means Tishri? It is written [Psalms, lxxxi. 3]: “Blow on the new moon the cornet at the time when it (the new moon) is hidden 1 on our solemn feast day.” What feast is it on which the moon is hidden? We can only say Rosh Hashana (New Year’s Day), and of this day it is written [ibid. v. 4]: “For it is a statute unto Israel, a judgment (day) for the God of Jacob.”

And so I contacted this supposed scholar of the Hebrew language and asked him a few direct questions that left no room for confusion and the first response I received was nothing but more obfuscation, so I replied back with additional questions based upon his first reply, questions that were direct & to the point, and along with those questions, I included a list of the resources I used to determine my understanding of Psalm 81:3 as it was applied before Psalm 81:3 was written, and according to all Hebrew sources on the matter, it is still taught as being the correct understanding today. As of this publishing, this supposed scholar of the Hebrew language has yet to respond to the authoritative witnesses, in the authoritative resources used by all renown Hebrew scholars, that I had shared in my e-mail to his initial reply. I had sent my initial e-mail on 4/22 at 11:42 am, he promptly responded at 11:57 am and I then replied back at 1:24pm and included this request: “I do not want to belabor this, I am just seeking further understanding from further resources you used to determine your understanding other than the BDB”. All I have heard since then is ‘crickets’.

Now on the other hand, one of his most admired students did make a stronger attempt, but alas, he was the one who magically made two witnesses appear from one original witness. He takes the following quote from the synopsis to Chapter 1 of the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Rosh Hashanah and he cites the quote in the synopsis that is from the MISHNA as one witness and then uses the same quote in the actual chapter that is from the GEMARA that immediately follows the exact quote from the MISHNA, and is but a retelling of what the MISHNA had just said a couple of paragraphs prior, and then cites that as another witness. And as with the ‘lead teacher’, I had asked this student if he had read & studied chapter two of the Tractate Rosh Hashanah and his reply was that he could not recall at that time if he had read & studied it.

“It once happened that more than forty pair (of witnesses) were on the highway (to Jerusalem) and R. Aqiba detained them,”

Next this student of the supposed Hebrew scholar makes a bold statement about the ordinances for sighting the new moon yet he never cites the actual language of the Talmud tractate that tells us what those ordinances are.

A special court has been established to accept evidence concerning the sighting of the New Moon, as required by Jewish law.

One thing to keep in mind here is that the requirement to establish a ‘special new moon court’ is nowhere to be found in the Bible, this is a man-made Jewish religious law that was established out of another man-made Jewish religious law that treated these ‘new moon’ days as Sabbaths with all the burdensome rules and regulations they had placed on the weekly & annual Sabbath days. And so to make an exception, they devised even more laws that allowed for the witnesses to ‘break the Sabbath’ in order to bring their report to the ‘special new moon court’ who refused to move an inch, but stayed indoors, so as not to ‘break the Sabbath’ that they had created.

So what does the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Rosh Hashanah say are the ordinances by which a witness’s testimony is considered valid or false, ordinances that both the ‘lead teacher’ and his students fail to include in their papers they have written on the subject? First we need to establish some facts regarding the cycles of the moon and when it is visible to the naked eye, both in its final waning stage and its first waxing stage. The only time the moon can be seen rising in the eastern sky just before sunrise is during the final qtr. phase of moon’s monthly cycle. Therefore, once the moon goes dark, it is not visible in the eastern sky just before sunrise during the first three qtr. phases of the next cycle of the moon because the moon always rises after the sun rises during these three phases. Another argument that the ‘lead teacher’ and his students use has to do with the sliver of the moon being seen in the morning and then again in the evening. They claim, as a supposed matter of fact, that anyone who claims they saw the moon at both times is a false witness, however, once again, they do not take into account, as the rabbis do in the Talmud, that during certain winter months when the daylight hours are very short, it is not unusual to see the final waning crescent of the moon both in the morning and then again in the evening. I have witnessed this myself many times.

Also, as we move on to read the ‘Jewish’ ordinances concerning what time of day the sightings were taking place, keep in mind that Jewish religious law is not written like the laws we are used to reading. They are written in the manner of a court transcript and in that transcript is where we find what was considered valid testimony and what was considered false testimony, i.e., ordinances.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha that R. Gamaliel said to the sages: “Thus it has been handed down to me from the house of my grandfather (Zamalill the elder) that sometimes the new moon appears elongated and sometimes diminished. R. Hyya saw the old moon yet on the morning of the twenty-ninth day, and threw clods of earth at it, saying: ‘We should consecrate thee in the evening, and thou art seen now? Go, hide thyself!'”
Said Rabbi to R. Hyya: “Go to Entob and consecrate the month and send back to me as a password 1 ‘David, the King of Israel, still lives.'”

MISHNA: There was a large court in Jerusalem called Beth Ya’azeq, where all the witnesses met, and where they were examined by the Beth Din. Great feasts were made there for (the witnesses) in order to induce them to come frequently. At first they did not stir from there all day (on the Sabbath), 1 till R. Gamaliel, the elder, ordained that they might go two thousand ells on every side; and not only these (witnesses) but also a midwife, going to perform her professional duties, and those who go to assist others in case of conflagration, or against an attack of robbers, or in case of flood, or (of rescuing people) from the ruins (of a fallen building) are considered (for the time being) as inhabitants of that place, and may go (thence on the Sabbath) two thousand ells on every side. How were the witnesses examined? The first pair were examined first. The elder was introduced first, and they said to him: Tell us in what form thou sawest the moon; was it before or behind the sun? Was it to the north or the south (of the sun)? What was its elevation on the horizon? Towards which side was its inclination? What was the width of its disk? If he answered before the sun, his evidence was worthless. After this they introduced the younger (witness) and he was examined; if their testimony was found to agree, it was accepted as valid; the remaining pairs (of witnesses) were asked leading questions, not because their testimony was necessary, but only to prevent them departing, disappointed, and to induce them to come again often,

MISHNA: Formerly they received evidence as to the appearance of the new moon the whole (of the thirtieth) day. Once the witnesses were delayed in coming, and they disturbed the songs of the Levites. They then ordained that evidence should only be received until (the time of) the afternoon service, and if witnesses came after that time both that and the following day were consecrated. After the destruction of the Temple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that evidence (as to the appearance) of the new moon should be received all day.
GEMARA: What disturbance did they cause to the songs of the Levites? Said R. Zera to A’hbha, his son: Go and teach to them (the Mishna) thus: “They ordained that evidence as to the appearance of the new moon should not be received, only that there might be time during the day to offer the continual and the additional sacrifices and their drink offerings, and to chant the (daily) song without disturbing the order.”

MISHNA: It happened once that two witnesses came and said: We saw the moon in the eastern part of the heavens in the morning, and in the western part in the evening. R. Jo’hanan b. Nouri declared them to be false witnesses; but when they came to Yamnia, Rabbon Gamaliel received their evidence as valid.

What we have learned from the ‘transcripts’ of the proceedings of the court is that in each instance, the witnesses were sent out to bring back testimony of the moon rising in the east during the final qtr. phase of the moon’s monthly cycle. Period!

Now as to the ‘Feast of the Fifteenth’, that was noted in the book “Ancient Egyptian Science Volume II, Calendars, Clocks, and Astronomy’, the same is with YHWH Elohim’s Appointed times of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that begins at sunset immediately following the Passover sacrifice.

R. Na’hman said to certain sailors, “Ye who do not know the calendar take notice that when the moon still shines at dawn (it is full moon, and if it happens to be Nissan) destroy your leaven bread (for it is then the fourteenth day).”

It is plainly clear that if a person is waiting to witness the first sliver of the waxing new moon, the dates they keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Tabernacles on are nearly always going to be at least a day or two after the full moon when it is now clearly visible to the naked eye that the moon is no longer full, but is growing old and losing its light. This also proves that what the ‘lead teacher’ claimed as truth is, in fact, not true at all.

…(Hag HaMazot and Hag HaSukkot) are on the 15th of the month, which is about the time of the full moon.

The truth of the Feasts that begin on the ‘fifteenth’ day of the first and seventh months was revealed to me many years ago when we had set up camp down at the river to remember and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall. At that time we were following tradition and we had gone down and set up the camper a few days in advance. It was on that first evening as I was taking the dog for a walk that I looked up and saw the full moon rising in the eastern sky and I thought to myself, this isn’t right. The Feast was to begin at the time of the full moon, not two days later!

And so why should this even be important to us today? The majority like to quote the Scripture that says, no man knows the day or the hour, and in doing so, they ignore the other Scriptures that say those in Messiah will not be caught as a thief in the night when Messiah returns because they are children of the light. Once one clears out all the clutter that was added to the following verses by translators, who didn’t understand the importance of the Appointed times of YHWH Elohim, nor did they remember or honor them, instead setting them aside for man-made religious traditions, they twisted what Paul had said to their own destruction, because, had they not added to Paul’s words and had simply stuck to what the Greek text actually says, they would have translated it as:

1Th 5:1-2 Now, brothers, as to the time, yea the Appointed time, you do not need to be written to. For you yourselves know very well that the day of יהוה comes as a thief in the night.

The context of these verses, as well as the context of all the surrounding text to these verses, clearly reveals that Paul is speaking of one specific day on Elohim’s Holy Appointed calendar, the day of YHWH Elohim that is described by Moses and the Prophets as the day that the moon gives no light. There is only one Appointed time when this occurs and that is the first day of the seventh month which is the Feast of Trumpets. According to Scripture, this day is “The Day of YHWH” which is often referred to by many as “The Day of the LORD”.

Remember the ten maidens in Matthew 25:1-13? They all knew of the Appointed time, however, not all had prepared themselves to stay put so to be sitting still and patiently waiting the Grooms arrival. Half of the maidens had to leave to go shopping because they showed up unprepared for the Groom’s arrival. They knew the approximate time the Groom would arrive, however, because of tradition, half of them failed to bring with them all that was needed because in their minds the arrival was still a day or two away, and since the others who were prepared did not bring any extra oil with them, the five foolish maidens set out on foot to go shopping and upon their return the door to the wedding Feast had already been opened & closed.

And this all brings us back to Genesis 1. It is written that in the beginning Elohim created (bara) the heavens and the earth which means everything existed, but Elohim had not yet prepared them,  i.e., given light to them. All was dark including the sun & the moon. It was not until sometime after the 3rd day that Elohim prepared (asah) the sun and the moon and then after preparing them we are told that they are to be as signs (oth) in the heavens for days, for years & for His Appointed times (moed).

The Creator’s calendar began the counting of all time, days, days of months, and days of years from the first day that all was created (bara). The moon on the very first day, of the very first month, of the very first year of all creation, that day the moon gave no light, just as the ‘special new moon court’ testified it to be according to what is written in His Holy Scriptures, His Word of Truth. And this brings us to the 1260 days, aka, 3 1/2 years. Well, ask yourself, 3 1/2 years of what?

There is a weekly Sabbath every seven days, and then there are seven annual Sabbaths in His Appointed calendar, which annual Sabbath occurs in the ‘midst’ of those seven, i.e., in the middle? The Feast of Trumpets, the day & hour when no man is able to see those few minutes in time when the old light has faded and the new light begins, only YHWH Elohim in Heaven knows! Even King David understood the importance of witnessing the waning moon so to know when to hide from Saul who was seeking to kill him.

1Sa 20:5 And David said to Jonathan, “See, tomorrow is the New Moon, and I ought to sit with the sovereign to eat. But let me go, and I shall hide in the field until the third day at evening. … 18 So Jonathan said to him, “Tomorrow is the New Moon, and you shall be missed, because your seat shall be empty.

Both David and Jonathan knew it was not safe for David to go up to the Feast, or to come out of hiding until after the new moon had passed and his evidence that the new moon had passed was when David and Jonathan were able to visibly see the light of the moon growing in illumination and strength after the third day!

And this is why “Context, and the Calendar Matters” for all who claim to be children of Elohim, whether native or grafted in, and yes, as it is written both in the Old Testament and New Testament, some of those grafted in are the natural branches who remain broken off because they have yet to receive Yeshua (Jesus) as their Messiah! It was YHWH Elohim who placed a veil over their heart that they would not understand, and only when that veil is lifted through their belief that Yeshua (Jesus) is indeed their Messiah and confesses that belief with their mouth, is understanding then given. And so those of us who have been grafted in, we must be careful not to boast against the natural branches that were broken off lest, because of our arrogance, we find ourselves broken off as they were! But nowhere is it written that we are to set the unbelieving natural branches up as teachers and scholars over any assembly, in fact, Yeshua (Jesus) warns us to beware of those men and their teachings, because it is through their twisting of His Word of Truth, His Holy Scriptures, and then taking His Word of Truth out of context, that man is able to create all kinds of false doctrines and false calendar systems so to deceive the masses.

Pro 6:16-19 These six matters יהוה hates, And seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, And hands shedding innocent blood, A heart devising wicked schemes, Feet quick to run to evil, A false witness breathing out lies, And one who causes strife among brothers.

Therefore, let us quit using this matter of the calendar to cause further strife. One person may prefer ‘tradition’ because they have not sufficiently studied the matter out, as we had done in the beginning of our walk in His Sabbath truth, while another who has studied the matter out has chosen to practice truth as Elohim spoke it, while also remaining in fellowship with those who prefer to practice tradition. No matter the choice, it is a personal choice that neither side should hold against the other.

The truth of the matter is, YHWH Elohim was and is perfectly capable of preserving His calendar as He established it in the beginning, even through the Pharaohs of Egypt through whom He preserved the Israelites until the time of their deliverance from Egypt, as opposed to one of the surrounding nations of Egypt who all began their calendars after the second or third day of the new moon, depending on when the first waxing crescent of the renewed moon was seen in the evening.

In conclusion, I leave with those who desire to continue to berate and cast out believers in Messiah, because they do not follow their unsubstantiated calendar ‘traditions’ and refuse to lie to others about their belief so to support the unsubstantiated ‘tradition’, these words of Messiah.

“For he who is not against us is for us” [Numbers 11:24-29; Mark 9:33-41; Luke 9:46-50]

Beware of Ignorant Lawyers Posing as “Constitutional Experts”

bangheadagainstwall3The internet can be a very useful tool for researchers of any area of the US Constitution, however, it is also a source used by many useful idiots who, because they have gamed some sort of collegiate degree, they believe themselves to be the ultimate authority in textual interpretation of the US Constitution and its subsequent statutes at large. Take the website supremelaw.org for example. The website is owned by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. who’s website was created for the sole purpose of making a living by supposedly teaching constitutional law when in fact, it is nothing but a course in understanding Mr. Mitchell’s uneducated view of the US Constitution.

What lead me to Mr. Mitchell’s website was a search I was doing in regards to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 as it pertains to the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. What Mr. Mitchell would have us believe is that the 14th Amendment changed the relationship & nature of citizenship in the 50 united States of America in that it transformed the ‘natural born citizens’ residing in any of the 50 states into ‘aliens’ for the purpose of taxation thereby alienating the creators from the creation. Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the 14th Amendment created a whole new class of citizens, federal citizens of the District of Columbia and its territories, specifically for purposes of taxation all the while ignoring the fact that it was the representatives of the States united at that time under the US Constitution that ratified the 14th Amendment that made sure that the former slaves of any of the several states of the Union would, from thence forward, have the same legal standing as the free men of the Union. It changed nothing in regards to A1, S8, C4 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … “.

Also, Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the term ‘United States’ as it appears in A1, S8, C4 of the US Constitution refers ONLY to the District of Columbia and the territories that the Federal Government has immediate “authority” over. This is an uneducated interpretation as the Congressional records of the Constitutional convention tell us that the term ‘United States’ as it appears in the US Constitution has several meanings and therefore it is the context of any given article or subsection of that article that dictates the proper meaning of the term used therein.

Therefore, it was not the authors of the 14th Amendment that changed the meaning of the term ‘United States’ as it pertains to citizenship, it is Mr. Mitchell’s ignorance of the rules of interpretation of law that enables the ignorant public at large to remain further ignorant and even more susceptible to their wrongful application of the law that leads them down the path of self inflicted harm because of their ignorance of the law, or their reliance on a person with big letters behind their names as if those big letters are a guarantee that that person actually has studied the actual statutes so to know the law such as Mr. Mitchell who admits to NOT reading the laws. From the very onset of his book, The Federal Zone, Mitchell admits that he has not gone to the actual statutes, but simply relied on treatises written by men or women of the same Constitutional ignorance as Mitchell because of course, they are supposed experts.

Well, let’s test Mr. Mitchell’s expertise.

In the book, The Federal Zone, Mitchell begins by touching upon the Supreme court case, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Mr. Mitchell’s contention is that it was not the fact that Brushaber was an investor that held stock in a federally held corporation located in the territory of Utah (Utah had not yet become a state of the union) that was the determining factor of the case. Mitchell would have us believe that it was Brushabers’ claim that he was a citizen of the State of New York and resident of the borough of Brooklyn, NY that gave rise to the reason that Brushaber lost the case. Mitchell would have us believe that by claiming to be a ‘citizen’, regardless of the place of residency, Brushaber was claiming to be a citizen of the federally owned District of Columbia because, according to Mitchell, 14th Amendment citizens are aliens of the ‘States of the Union’ and therefore, it was Brushaber’s use of the term ‘citizen’ in reference to himself that made him subject to taxation rather than his financial activity with the federal government that Brushaber engaged in that caused Brushaber to become subject to taxation under the 16th Amendment. This is legal chicanery at its worst and the cause of many fined and jailed citizens who follow such nonsense.

The whole premise of Mitchell’s website, as far as I can determine, is to create  a following so to have the constitutionally legal 16th Amendment repealed and the constitutionally created IRS abolished. It is also Mitchell’s contention that Congress never passed any legislation creating the  Department of Internal Revenue. As I stated above, Mitchell admits to not having actually read the statutes at large, therefore, how would he know that the statute of July 1, 1862 titled “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt” began by stating:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of super-intending the collection of internal duties, stamp duties, licenses, or taxes imposed by this act, or which may be hereafter imposed, and of assessing the same, and office is hereby created in the Treasury Department to be called the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with an annual salary of four thousand dollars, who shall be charged, and is hereby charged, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, with preparing all the instructions, regulations, directions, forms, blanks, stamps, and licenses, and distributing the same, …”

Now to recap, Mitchell believes that the Department of Internal Revenue and its taxing authority was subsequent to the passing of the 14th Amendment when in fact, the statute that became the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was created by Congress four years after the establishment of the Department of Internal Revenue and a full four years after the Internal Revenue began collecting the constitutional taxes authorized by the US Constitution. What Mitchell has done is to erroneously put the cart before the horse because Mr. Mitchell was too lazy to do his own research, wholly relying on the constitutional ignorance of others like himself, thereby, not being of the educated mind of our founding fathers, many of whom never stepped one foot in a law school, Mr. Mitchell has ignored the fact that in order for the creation to do what the creators created it do, it would need a revenue system that would give it the means by which to do that which it was created to do.

And then there is Mitchell’s utter lack of understanding of exactly what an excise (duty) tax is, a tax on activity regardless of the person’s citizenship status.

Suffice to say, I can now, without a shadow of a doubt, conclude this review of supremelaw.org and its owner Paul Andrew Mitchell, by rendering my official opinion as an educated citizen of the United States of America and resident of one of the 50 States of that Union, that Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell, regardless of the big letters he displays after his name from the empty degrees he holds, Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell is NOT an expert on the US Constitution or the 14th & 16th Amendments to said Constitution and that no one should, for the purposes of educating themselves, entertain anything that is published at Mitchell’s website as a source of constitutional truth.

For those who are truly interested in  becoming the type of educated citizen that the founding fathers as well as the drafters of the 14th & 16th Amendments were, begin by reading,  The Fascinating Truth About The 16th Amendment followed by Bob’s Bicycles. This will give you the proper factual foundation that every truly educated citizen builds their constitutional education upon so to be able to apply the law as Congress, at the time of the adoption of the law, intended them to apply it.



Pro 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. 5 Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely

America’s Demise…The Rise of the Pharisees & Their Lies!

Just caught a bit of Mark Levin’s rewind and for a supposed constitutional lawyer & one who presumes to know the law, Mark sure has a huge ignorance problem in regards to constitutional citizenship 101.

Just as Obama was not constitutionally qualified, as Rubio is not, Ted Cruz is also not a natural born citizen, he is a citizen at birth as defined by the naturalization laws granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Summaries for the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994

Library of Congress

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


Title I – Nationality and Naturalization Title II: Technical Corrections of Immigration Laws Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994

Title I – Nationality and Naturalization

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to grant U.S. citizenship at birth to a person born before noon of May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States to an alien father and U.S. citizen mother who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Excludes participants of Nazi persecutions or genocide from such provision.

Waives the physical U.S. presence requirements for a person claiming U.S. citizenship based upon descent from a person described above.

Makes such provisions retroactive.

You see folks, nature has no need of any law to determine that which is born of it naturally. And that principle is best displayed in the Preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our founding fathers were wise men. One of the wisest in my opinion was James Wilson who later went to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Wilson wrote:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

The foundational principle that a husband and a wife become one, not just spiritually, but also politically is the very framework by which all families are knit together in both home and community for the safety & well being of both home and community. Wilson, as well as all of our founding fathers, knew this very well. It was the rock upon which our freedom from the tyranny of the British government was laid.

Now stepping back from the legalities of all of this, laws or no laws, there is a much greater work being done here in regards to this usurpation by all political parties of the Article II presidential qualifications and I expect many will object to me pointing this fact out. A fact I myself refused to see until I simply faced the lies & the liars head on, face to face.

The root of the problem our nation faces is not political, it is biblical and why does the problem exist? It exists because of the American pulpits that have bowed down to their enemy, the Pharisees of old. The pulpits that proclaim to represent Christ yet more often than not, they take every occasion possible to give credence to Christ’s enemies of old by supporting both physically & monetarily, the religious system & its leaders that Christ rebuked.

Yes, in the not so distant past I too was blinded by this “Judeo-Christian” mythical theology. But I am blinded no more. I mean really, think about it … “Judeo” first, “Christian” last? Modern Christianity has conceded its rightful place in our nations founding and have returned to being slaves to the Pharisees of Talmudic Judaism (Mt 15, Mk 7) who do not even believe in or teach their congregations about a divine Messiah, but a human messiah born of 2 human parents who will rule the world according to their Talmud which is their most holy book that merely gives lip service to The Word of God. A subject I will delve into much more in the near future as it pertains to the destruction of our nation from within.

Therefore, I no longer have any respect for the Talmudist Mark Levin and his underlying pharisaical theological views that he uses in the continued destruction of our nations most sacred documents and in doing so, the Talmudist Levin feeds the beast that is destroying our nation from within because of the biblical ignorance of modern day Christians who no longer give respect to the teachings of Christ that have been in place before the foundation of this world was even formed.

The Word of God warned us through Paul of what He was going to do because of people & their pulpits who deny His Truth,

2Th 2:11 And for this reason Elohim sends them a working of delusion, for them to believe the falsehood, [See:Eze. 20:25, John 9:39, John 12:40, Acts 7:42, Rom. 1:24-28] 12 in order that all should be judged who did not believe the truth, but have delighted in the unrighteousness.

There was a time folks when it was deemed right in the eyes of God to teach & preach Moses (Acts 15:21-22), however, because of modern revisionist Christianity that is more apostate than it even thought to be at the time of our nation’s founding, God is making good on His Word that He spoke through Paul. The greatest delusion today is this notion that America was ever a “Christian” nation. The 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli dispels that myth quite easily. You see, the men who agreed to this treaty knew the importance of religious freedom and they were very well learned in the despotism of the religious laws of the theologies of the varied sects of Christendom that spanned the lands of the states of the Union. For America to be a “Christian” nation, America would have to be ruled by the laws of religion that were made by men (2Kg 17:19). Instead, the founding fathers gave us a Constitution based upon the Laws of Nature & the Creator of all Nature.

It was men who took the Laws of God and twisted them so to make religions by which to rule over the people such as those that Christ rebuked in Mark 7, the same laws of the Pharisees that are now codified in the Talmud of Judaism. Christ came to remove that religious yoke by teaching by example, the right way in which to walk in the Laws of God the Father and the 1st Law He set forth before He even spoke a word to Adam was the setting aside of the 7th day as His Holy Day. Then later, with Moses bowing before Him, He wrote the word “REMEMBER” as He began to write the 4th Commandment upon the tablet of stone with the forefinger of His Right Hand.

Christianity has all but thrown God out of its establishments by their denying week after week, the authority of God the Father that is in the right hand of the One who is the Father’s Right Hand (Ps 118:14-17). In today’s legal terms, this means that the Son carries the Power of Attorney of the Father to Act on the Father’s behalf according to the Laws of the Father. He is given no power to change the Law of the Father, but to simply teach and rule according to the Law of the Father. And this is why The Son is the same yesterday, today and forever, because God changes not and therefore, His Son changes not one thing, but simply puts things back in order as they were in the beginning. (Acts 3:21 the restoration of ALL things)

Until Christians REMEMBER who exactly is in power and whom their obedience is owed to, God the Father and not the pulpits of the religions of men, American’s Christians will remain powerless to bring about any restoration of our nation and its founding documents because they deny the entrance into their hearts of the Son who holds the Power of Attorney of the Father that gives the Son the authority to bring about that restoration.

Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to restore them. (See v. 19-20, Mt 22:40, Acts 7:38)

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. … 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Ecc 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of all mankind.


CPAC 2015: Where Constitutional Ignoramuses Unite in Lawlessness

I just listened to a bit of the CPAC convention that began today and Sean monkeysHannity was on the platform with dual citizen at birth (opposite of natural-born citizen) Ted Cruz and Constitutional Ignoramus Sean Hannity asked foreign citizen at birth Ted Cruz, if Cruz were elected president in 2016, what are the first things you would do. Cruz responded that first he would repeal Obamacare & second, he would abolish the IRS. Now I ask, other than changing the Constitution via another amendment that would revert us back to a system under the likes of the original Articles of Confederation that brought division rather than unification, how does Cruz propose to pay for the “INTERNAL” business of the Federal government of the United States that is constitutionally in place at this time? Shouldn’t his answer have been to educate the public and return the IRS back to its jurisdictional confines that were established in 1862 when it was first formed under the Revenue Act of 1862?

“On earth as it is in heaven: establishing jurisdiction”

The 1st order of business when establishing any law is to define the jurisdiction of the law-maker. As YHWH established His jurisdiction in the beginning, so too, our law makers must first determine whether or not the law they are intending to write and eventually pass, whether or not they have jurisdictional authority to enforce the said law. So before they can begin writing the law, they must 1st define who the law will apply to. Therefore, when one is accused of breaking the law, the 1st order of business in determining whether the law was broken or not broken is to determine if the activity of the accused falls under the jurisdiction of accuser according to the definitions within the law itself that the accuser wrote.

And therein lay the beauty of the decision of the Supreme Court and the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a God-fearing Constitutional lawyer, who knew & understood the definition of the words that define the jurisdictional authority of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare) as it is defined in the 16th Amendment that is 100% in compliance with the confines of the authority given to the Federal Government as is defined in Article I of the Constitution of the United States as it applies to “We the People” of these United States.

And so each year people pay undue taxes, fines and penalties, and sometimes even go to jail or prison, all because they failed to 1st establish whether or not the activity they were involved in fell under the jurisdictional authority of said law as defined within the confines of the said law they are accused of breaking. And this breaking of the law (wrongfully applying the law) that brings one under the jurisdictional authority of the said law can be as simple as signing ones name on a government document when there is no jurisdictional authority requiring them to sign the said government document in the 1st place. A document as simple as a W-4 or a 1099 form & all subsequent government documents that those 2 simple forms require the law-breaker (wrongfully applying the law) to file each year. All because one chose to trust man so to himself, remain ignorant of the law.

The 16th Amendment did not create the Federal Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue was established by the passing of the Revenue Act of 1862. What most do not know is that the Fuller Court (highly corrupt) had overturned certain aspects of the Revenue Act, thereby creating loopholes for their capital cronies. [Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429, and 158 U.S. 601, (both 1895)] And that is where the 16th Amendment came in, to lawfully correct the corrupt opinion of the Fuller court. Well, the cronies were having a fit so they again filed another lawsuit, [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 240 U.S. 17-18 (1916)], and this time they were not so lucky as to find themselves before another corrupt court they had bought off. The White Court unanimously voted to reverse the Pollock decision and the loopholes were closed up, thereby giving jurisdictional authority back to the Federal Internal Revenue as is originally defined in the Revenue Act of 1862. Chief Justice White wrote:

“In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely, the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises. … “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” … It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an authority already possessed and never questioned – or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.”

But you say, see, there it is “income taxes in a generic sense” and so that means my income too. I ask, is that what the definition of the jurisdictional authority of the Internal Revenue Code states as it is written within the IR Code (26 CFR)? I think you better go and read the definitions as they are written in the law because for the 1st 30 yrs after the 16th Amendment became law, less than 10% of all Americans who were employed filed income tax forms with the Federal Internal Revenue Service. But more importantly the Internal Revenue Service was established in 1862 and so if “income” is a generic term applied to all, then the tax that was levied to pay for the Civil War would not have been an equal apportioned tax handed out to the States as defined within the jurisdictional authority codified in the Constitution of the United States, instead they would have issued an indirect excise tax that is not confined to equal apportionment, indirect excise taxes such as those that are reported on every W-2, 1099 & K-1 forms filed with the IRS. Have you never asked yourself why it is called “Internal Revenue”? Think about it!

And so the Internal Revenue law stands today as it was established in 1862 & subsequently ratified as the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1913, many a time tried in the courts and from 1916 forward, neigh once was it overruled. Even as recently as the decision of the Roberts Court that was handed down. Oh how I love the law, both His and that of the United States of America where justice is done, where mercy is given, as long as one 1st establishes jurisdictional authority.

On earth as it is in heaven, first order of business, establish jurisdiction and then establish the jurisdictional authority of the source of your income because it is the jurisdiction that the source is under that causes one to come under the jurisdictional authority of the requirements of the law.


Pastor Mike Hoggard of Bethel Church – A LIAR and FALSE PROPHET!

There has been a widespread and growing ‘deadly cancer’ in the Christian church as of late and that ‘cancer’ is the pulpits profusely proclaiming that anyone who wishes to do ‘JUST AS’ Jesus did and to walk in the same manner as Jesus did, those who choose this path have fallen out of grace and are claimed to have joined a cult. So is this true?

On March 5, 2013, Mike Hoggard vehemently shouted at the top of his lungs during his radio broadcast that the 4th Commandment of God was nailed to the cross. Now mind you, this is the ONE Commandment of God that contains the ‘sign/mark” of His Covenant with all mankind that dates back to the seventh day of creation. So could the Jesus that Hoggard preaches be the true Messiah that never spoke against or did anything in disobedience to God the Father? I would say without a doubt, NO, Mike Hoggard is not proclaiming the true Messiah that Moses and the Prophets wrote about but a different messiah and a different gospel and here is why.

Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2  And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from (apostasy against, see 2Thess 2:3-4) the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Exo 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Isa 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people, …6  Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7  Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8  The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. … 10  His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. 11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Mike Hoggard claims to be a watchman but teaches that His seventh day Sabbath is not for all mankind and those that claim it is are heretics and members of some cult. So what else do the Prophets have to say of His Sabbath as being valid for ALL mankind?

Eze 20:11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them (Rm 10:5). 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.1 between them and Me, to know that I am יהוה who sets them apart. Footnote: 1See Ex. 31:13-17.

Eze 20:23  I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24  Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live1. Footnote: 1Ps. 81:12, Isa. 30:28, Acts 7:42, Rom. 1:24-28, 2 Thess. 2:11.

Isa 66:19 “And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. … 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

So we see that it was NOT prophesied that the Sabbath would be nailed to anything, but rather it will be restored in all its glory as it was in the beginning. So did Jesus of Nazareth speak to the continuation of the Father’s perpetual and everlasting seventh day Sabbath for all mankind? Why yes Jesus of Nazareth certainly did.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. … 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity (lawlessness / transgression against the Law of God) shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. … 20  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the SABBATH DAY: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

So as this false prophet Mike Hoggard claims that his Jesus nailed the 4th Commandment to the cross and that we no longer are bound by this burdensome law, but as we can see, the true Jesus of Nazareth of the King James bible tells us just the opposite of what false prophet Mike Hoggard prophesies and that the true Jesus will be expecting us to keep and honor the 4th Commandment because as a disciple, one who imitates and emulates the Master, if one is a true disciple of Jesus, then one will joyfully do as Jesus did and not call ANY command of the Father burdensome.

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (burdensome).

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them (Ez 20:11). 6  But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Deu 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden (too hard, too burdensome) from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

interestingly enough, Hoggard did quote from Paul about making void the Law of God, but then in the same breath he denied that which he just spoke while also ignoring the fact that Paull also taught us that we are to ‘establish’ the Law of God by doing it through faith just as Abraham ‘established’ the Law of God by doing it through faith.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

1Jn 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

We are sons and daughters of God through the begotten Son of God and therefore, as He did, we are to do likewise so that through the Son, we also can be transformed into the likeness of the Father.

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Therefore, according to Scripture Mike Hoggard is a LIAR and a FALSE PROPHET!

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Now I implore the readers to remember, these are NOT my words or accusations, these are the words and accusations of God the Father and His only begotten Son that Hoggard claims to represent yet in the same breath Hoggard denies both the Father and the Son. Therefore, in denying that the WHOLE Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation is for ALL mankind, Hoggard is denying the very existence of the authority of God the Father and His only begotten Son and creating his own authority upon the earth with a new Gospel message of lawlessness towards God the Father that the only begotten Son of God never taught or preached.

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

English as America’s First Foundational Language of The Scriptures

I think we can all agree that most, if not all, of us began our journey with the Scriptures as they were written in English. The only exception that I will use is the name of our Messiah. Names are to transliterated not translated and therefore if the proper name can be found, it should be used and therefore since God defined the name of His Son as Yeshua, that is the name I will use. In the English text it is endered Joshua, Jehoshua or Jeshua, even in the New Testament. (see Heb 4:8 … same name translated as Jesus, but from the beginning has always been Joshua, Jehoshua or Jeshua so this begs the question, why change the appearance of His name since Joshua is the prophetic picture of our Deliverer at His coming)

Every Bible worth its weight contains a ‘cliff notes’ version of a Concordance and sadly the 1998 version of the Scriptures does not, therefore, the reason I still continue to use the KJV / NKJV alongside it. So all the Scripture references given here are from the NKJV. Also, explanatory notes are great but they are far from being useful in determining the meaning of many of the passages that are used by Christian doctrine that distorts the Gospel Message and the true purpose of the Word of God putting on flesh.

I have also found that constantly referring back to the Hebrew or the Greek when discussing Scripture with my family and friends to be a total turn off. They don’t want to deal with foreign languages; they only want to deal with what is in front of them, their English bibles. So shouldn’t we first, with love and compassion, be able to show them the discrepancies in English first before we even think to go off into foreign territory?

Now there is another English tool that we can use here in America and that is the first English dictionary written for America and adopted by the US Congress for use in Congress as well as all schools of learning, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary. It is a great tool if one takes the time to use it along with the ‘cliff notes’ Concordance and is available for free at books.google.com. Take for example the word ‘repent’ which has been watered down by Christian doctrine. How did America’s founding fathers and early American preachers define this word?

“repent: to remember with sorrow [et. repair] Jer viii.”

So we see that repent means to be sorrowful of something that is in need of repair. And according to Mr. Webster and the American government, we need to read Jer 8 to understand what repent means. OK, let’s read Jer 8

Jer 8:1 “At that time,” says the LORD, “they shall bring out the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, out of their graves.

Jer 8:2 They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served and after which they have walked, which they have sought and which they have worshiped. They shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth.

Jer 8:3 Then death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of those who remain of this evil family, who remain in all the places where I have driven them,” says the LORD of hosts.

Jer 8:4 “Moreover you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Will they fall and not rise? Will one turn away and not return?

Jer 8:5 Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, They refuse to return.

Jer 8:6 I listened and heard, But they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’ Everyone turned to his own course, As the horse rushes into the battle.

Jer 8:7 “Even the stork in the heavens Knows her appointed times; And the turtledove, the swift, and the swallow Observe the time of their coming. But My people do not know the judgment of the LORD.

Jer 8:8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.

Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, They are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD; So what wisdom do they have?

Jer 8:10 Therefore I will give their wives to others, And their fields to those who will inherit them; Because from the least even to the greatest Everyone is given to covetousness; From the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely.

Jer 8:11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people slightly, Saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ When there is no peace.

Jer 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; In the time of their punishment They shall be cast down,” says the LORD.

Jer 8:13 “I will surely consume them,” says the LORD. “No grapes shall be on the vine, Nor figs on the fig tree, And the leaf shall fade; And the things I have given them shall pass away from them.” ‘ “

Jer 8:14 “Why do we sit still? Assemble yourselves, And let us enter the fortified cities, And let us be silent there. For the LORD our God has put us to silence And given us water of gall to drink, Because we have sinned against the LORD.

Jer 8:15 “We looked for peace, but no good came; And for a time of health, and there was trouble!

Jer 8:16 The snorting of His horses was heard from Dan. The whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing of His strong ones; For they have come and devoured the land and all that is in it, The city and those who dwell in it.”

Jer 8:17 “For behold, I will send serpents among you, Vipers which cannot be charmed, And they shall bite you,” says the LORD.

Jer 8:18 I would comfort myself in sorrow; My heart is faint in me.

Jer 8:19 Listen! The voice, The cry of the daughter of My people— From a far country: “Is not the LORD in Zion? Is not her King in her?” “Why have they provoked Me to anger With their carved images— With foreign idols?”

Jer 8:20 “The harvest is past, The summer is ended, And we are not saved!”

Jer 8:21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt. I am mourning; Astonishment has taken hold of me.

Jer 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead, Is there no physician there? Why then is there no recovery For the health of the daughter of my people?

Clearly the context of repent is to seek forgiveness in returning to the Law of God. In doing this, one turns their back on sin and moves forward by walking in His righteousness path rather than continuing to backslide away from the righteous path He laid out for us in His Law. And who does God blame for this backsliding? Everyone, even the prophet, the priest who continues to preach and teach falsehood as truth and especially the scribes who put His Word to pen, those who add to His words and take away from His words. So we must be careful when reading. If something is in italics, it is an addition and we must make sure that addition compliments what He says or if it changes the context of what He says so it seems to stand out on its own, not conforming to everything that is said around it.

Then there is the preacher or teacher who presumes to change the definition of a word. Take for instance the word ‘backslide’ used in Jer 8. I recently heard a local Baptist preacher say (and I am paraphrasing here for time and space), “I know the bible defines ‘backsliding’ as this, but I tell you it means this”. So now this preacher has just taken the authority away from our Creator to define His own words giving the impression that our Creator is not capable of giving us a proper definition of ‘backslide’ for today’s times. How arrogant and puffed up! To assume we know better than the Creator of our language, the English language! What did Webster have to say of ‘backslide(ing, er)’?

“to fall off, to apostatize, an apostate, one who neglects his vows of obedience and falls into sin, Jer v(5). 6

Let’s read it in context of what He says it to mean by backing up to Jer 5 verse 4.

Jer 5:4 Therefore I said, “Surely these are poor. They are foolish; For they do not know the way of the LORD, The judgment of their God.

Jer 5:5 I will go to the great men and speak to them, For they have known the way of the LORD, The judgment of their God.” But these have altogether broken the yoke And burst the bonds.

Jer 5:6 Therefore a lion from the forest shall slay them, A wolf of the deserts shall destroy them; A leopard will watch over their cities. Everyone who goes out from there shall be torn in pieces, Because their transgressions are many; Their backslidings have increased.

We see this defined by Paul in Rm 8 when he alludes to the backslider as one who is carnally minded, one who doe snot seek the Law of God, but rather seeks to find God on his own terms and in his own way..

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

The ‘cliff notes’ version of the Concordance in my KJV refers us to Jer 3 and Prov 14 to understand what backslide (ing, er) means, so let’s test it.

Jer 3:19 “But I said: ‘How can I put you among the children And give you a pleasant land, A beautiful heritage of the hosts of nations?’ “And I said: ‘You shall call Me, “My Father,” And not turn away from Me.’

Jer 3:20 Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel,” says the LORD.

Jer 3:21 A voice was heard on the desolate heights, Weeping and supplications of the children of Israel. For they have perverted their way; They have forgotten the LORD their God.

Jer 3:22 “Return, you backsliding children, And I will heal your backslidings.” “Indeed we do come to You, For You are the LORD our God.

Jer 3:23 Truly, in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, And from the multitude of mountains; Truly, in the LORD our God Is the salvation of Israel.

Jer 3:24 For shame has devoured The labor of our fathers from our youth— Their flocks and their herds, Their sons and their daughters.

Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, And our reproach covers us. For we have sinned against the LORD our God, We and our fathers, From our youth even to this day, And have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.”


Pro 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit.

Pro 14:9 Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is favor.

Pro 14:10 The heart knows its own bitterness, And a stranger does not share its joy.

Pro 14:11 The house of the wicked will be overthrown, But the tent of the upright will flourish.

Pro 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Pro 14:13 Even in laughter the heart may sorrow, And the end of mirth may be grief.

Pro 14:14 The backslider in heart will be filled with his own ways, But a good man will be satisfied from above.

Pro 14:15 The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.

Pro 14:16 A wise man fears and departs from evil, But a fool rages and is self-confident.

Now take notice of Prov 14:12 & 14, this is directly related to what Paul said in Rm 8. The one who God calls ‘good’ (wise) is one who is satisfied with the rules given from our Creator above. They see no need to add to or take away from His Word in order to build themselves up and create their own way to the Creator.

As Paul also states in his epistle to the Romans, not all are called for the same purpose, but all are members of the same body.

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,

Rom 12:5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.

Rom 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us,

Therefore some are given to the study the Scriptures from a Hebrew or Greek perspective and others are given to the study from an English only perspective. I fully enjoy studying from all perspectives, but I understand that not all are called to do so and therefore, we must respect each ones individual calling in the body of Messiah and give our brethren and sisters in Messiah who are called to the study of His Scriptures from the English perspective their due respect as it does have its place in the body of Mashiach and His vision for the gathering of His lost sheep.

So as Paul and Peter called us to do, let us be prepared to give an answer, an answer in a language in which the one we are speaking to understands lest His words are brought to nothing but gibberish to the ones they are spoken to.

1Co 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

1Co 14:7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played?

1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?

1Co 14:9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

1Pe 3:13 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?

1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “AND DO NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR THREATS, NOR BE TROUBLED.”

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

1Pe 3:19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,

1Pe 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

And now that one has a foundational understanding of repentance in light of backsliding according to an American founding era father in our English language, let’s move this into the context of His feast days. While Christendom has replaced all but Pentecost with ones of her own, and since these words cannot be found in the ‘cliff notes’ Concordance but being such important times, one would think they should be included, what hath Mr. Webster to say of the Christian festivals of Easter and Christmas?

CHRIST’MAS, n. [Christ and mass. Sax Aiassn, a holy day or feast ; D. hersmis.] The festival of the christian church served annually on the 25th day of ,December, in memory of the birth of Christ, and celebrated by a particular church service. The festival includes twelve days.

E’ ASTER, n. [Sax. easter ; G. ostem ; supposed to be from Eostre, the goddess of love or Venus of the north, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors, in April ; whence this month was called Eostermonath. Eoster is supposed by Beda and others to be the Astarte of the Sidonians. See Beda, Cluver, and the authorities cited by Cluver, and by Jamieson, under Paysyad.]

A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior’s resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

Now considering that it was the false worship of God that continued to get Israel in trouble by continually replacing His instructions for worship of Him, with their own definition of worship, how does Mr. Webster define obedience to God?

DISOBE’DIENCE, n. [dis and obedience.] Neglect or refusal to obey ; violation of a command or prohibition ; the omission of that which is commanded to be done, the doing of that which is forbid ; breach of duty prescribed by authority. By one man*s disobedience, many were made sinners. Rom. v.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no Law.

So even Mr. Webster knew that without God’s Law, there is nothing to accuse one of even being a sinner, so God’s Law must therefore be active at all times and for all times for all peoples of the world as Mr. Webster shows us in his reference to Scripture in defining what defines sin is. So again Mr. Webster displays the need to let Scripture define what the words in Scripture mean, therefore since Mr. Webster does not reference Scripture in his definitions of Easter or Christmas, but rightly defines them as things that were added as a “REPLACMENT OF” and as an “ADDITION TO” what God had commanded, therefore these Christian days of celebration have no biblical foundation from which one can gleam the purpose of these times set aside for worship of the Creator by early Roman Christendom. Neither do they lead us to any Scriptural authority from God for enjoining them to His Name. And the fact that even Webster attaches Easter to pagan sun god worship should bring trembling to every American Christian who thinks to continue in the practice of such a tainted celebration that is so dearly beloved by pagan sun god worshipers to this very day!

But what of the Sabbath? Does Mr. Webster reference Scripture for either the seventh day or the first day?

SAB’BATH,n, [Heb, to cease, to rest] 1. the day which God appointed to be observed by the Jews as a day of rest from all secular labor or emplymens, and to be kept holy and consecrated to His service and worship. This was originally the seventh day of the week, the day on which God rested from the work of creation; and this day is still observed by the Jews and some Christians, as the sabbath. But the Christian church very early begun and still continue to observe the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ on that day, by which the work of redemption was completed. Hence it is called the Lord’s day. The heathern nations in the north of Europe dedicated this day to the sun, and hence their Christian descendants continue to call the day Sunday. Nut in the United States, Christians have to a great extent disregarded the heathen name and adopted the Jewish name sabbath. 2. Intermission of pain or sorrow; time of rest. 3. The sabbatical year among the Israelites. Lev xxv.

Although Webster does not include Gen 2:1-4, he does direct us to it being the source and definition of the Sabbath. But much to our dismay, Webster while pointing us to Lev 25, he leaves out Lev 23 in regards to the 4th commandment (Ex 20:8-11). But what is revealing is the fact that Sunday has always been associated with pagan sun god worship, so to disregard the seventh day in lieu of the first day, one has replaced the meaning of the resurrection of Messiah, as a sign of restoration, with the worship of the created flesh who was resurrected. But of course one would have to believe that Yeshua did not fulfill the Jonah prophecy by raising before the first day of the week, on His Sabbath Day, but rather stayed in the grave longer than the time He was prophesied to be in the grave in order to bring forth a new command related to an eight day week as is promoted in Christian doctrine. The eighth day according to God’s Word is always in reference to the duration of time for a festival or the number of days after a child’s birth, his eighth day of life. But the eighth day is never used in the context of the counting of a period of time regarding the time set aside for a completed ‘week’ that God defined for us in Gen 1 -2:4 in determining the counting of time regarding days, weeks and years.

It is in Yeshua’s resurrection on the seventh day that the promise of the eternal Sabbath rest was fulfilled. Therefore, to change the seventh day Sabbath to any other day of the week changes the meaning of eternal sabbath rest as beginning on the seventh day as He gave it to us in the beginning. A change from the seventh day denies the fulfillment of the prophecy of His resurrection, thereby denying Him and replacing Him with some other false deity that is said to have risen on the first day of the week. Yeshua never commanded us to worship either He or the Father on the first day of the week and Yeshua never uttered a word to us to honor His upcoming resurrection with a separate day of worship called the ‘Lord’s day’ or the ‘Eighth day’. Quite the contrary, Yeshua stated this in regards to His return to gather us so that we may enter into the eternal Sabbath with Him,

Mat 24:20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

If the seventh day Sabbath was not to be continued, why does He tell us to pray we won’t have to take flight away from the adversary on the Sabbath as if He expected that we would still be honoring the Creator and His Word, by continuing to observe His 4th commandment regarding the seventh day of the week?

And what of the promise of Is 56?

1 Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, For My salvation is about to come, And My righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man who does this, And the son of man who lays hold on it; Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And keeps his hand from doing any evil.” 3 Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people” … 6 “Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, And to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants— Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant— 7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Or the warnings of Ezekiel 20 and 22?

20:11 And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, ‘which, if a man does, he shall live by them.’ 12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. [see Ex 31:13-17]

22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

Or how about the reiterating of the covenant of promise in Zach 2?

10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.

No, we do not need to use foreign languages to restore the Gospel message of Yeshua the Messiah, we simply need to understand and use our own English language and everything past that is merely for our personal understanding for whatever further purpose He has called us to serve.

Shabbat Shalom! May your journey in, through and of His Word in our English language be blessed and fruitful!