"Peace Be With You"

Home Forum Free Book Downloads Contact Behold! Essays Court Cases Behold! Materials

Miscegenation or Interracial Marriage

Corruption of Blood - Part 1

Corruption of Blood - Part 2

Corruption of Blood - Analysis
  by Randy Geiszler

Communism in America: Do You Live Under Communist Rule in the U.S.S.A.   (USA)?

To Lose Our Sovereignty or The Dismantling of a Christian Nation

Preamble to the United States Constitution - Who are the Posterity?






Church & State


County Governments Abolished in Connecticut (1998)

News from Massachusetts: County Government Ends

On Civil Rights & The Freedman's Bureau




November, 1985
(edited July, 2007)

April 19, 1935 - Congressman John Taber of New York:

"Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people." The Formative Years of Social Security, Arthur J. Altmeyer, 1966, p. 37-38.

April 19, 1935 - Congressman Daniel Reed of New York:

"The lash of the dictator will be felt and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test." The Formative Years, supra at p. 38.

April 19, 1935 - Congressman James W. Wadsworth of New York:

"This bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants." The Formative Years, supra at p. 38.

Prior to 1776, the States (colonies) of the United States were sovereign in their own right, as were the people, under the Articles of Confederation. Christianity being dominant in the land.

At the adoption of the United States Constitution, the States and the people vested a very limited portion of their sovereignty in the newly born United States Government.

The Constitution of the United States was proposed, adopted and ratified by "We, the People," who were composed of only free white persons, for our mutual defense, as a nation (race). The assent to the Constitution was necessarily made by those deemed sovereign, that is to say, by the sovereign body. [See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857); Preamble U.S. Const.; Declaration of Independence]

"We the People of the United States, in order to ... insure ... and secure ... to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Preamble, U.S. Constitution

"When ... it becomes necessary for one People ... to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..." Declaration of Independence, 1776

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our Republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 @ 404

"... at that time [it] was perfectly understood to be confined to the white race; and that they alone constituted the sovereignty of the Government." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 @ 420

When the government for the United States of America was formed and given power by the Constitution, it (U.S. Gov.) was limited strictly by the grant of power in the Constitution. And, because the People and the States seriously distrusted the new government, fearing it might try to centralize all power and sovereignty in its own hands, provision was made in Article V of the Constitution to make the Bill of Rights a part of the Constitution, as an additional statement of restrictions on the United States government.

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficial ends of its institution." Preamble to the Bill of Rights, United States Constitution

The most inportant Articles of the Bill of Rights, considering the words of the Preamble, are IX and X, which ensure that rights and sovereignty remain in the States and the People in their respective spheres. Furthermore these Articles (IX and X) by their very wording could only be used, for protection, by the citizens designated and defined in the Preamble.

From the very beginning, the central government began to struggle with the States and the People to centralize power in its own hands (see The Life of John Marshal by Albert J. Beveridge, 1919). So, the fears which brought the bill of Rights into being were almost immediately realized and proven to be well founded.

By these limitations, the United States government was prohibited from making legislation in areas which interfered with the sovereignty of the States or the persons and sovereignty of the citizens of the States. Again, these citizens were white persons. (see The Naturalization Acts dated prior to 1860).

The Congress of the United States had no power then to interfere with, or change the face of the sovereignty vested in the States and their citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford, supra). As a result the United States Government had no success in centralizing absolute power in its own hands for the first 90 years of its existance. Any attempt to do so was thwarted, because the States merely upheld the Bill of Rights against the United States, in the State courts, whenever the United States government made the attempt, leaving the United States without recourse, since the courts of the United States could not overturn rulings made in accord with the Bill of Rights in the State courts. And, if the courts of the United Sates misconstrued the United States Constitution, the State could use Article V to clarify the Constitution by Amendment, and destroy the misconstruction.

In the late 1850s a chain of events began to take place that would pervert our United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Constitution and laws of the several States, and which would disfranchise the State Legislatures as well as the States' citizens, would deprive both of their sovereignty, and silently (secretly) destroy the States' powers and the United States as formed, replacing them with a new government dressed with all the appearances of the United States Government but repugnant to its institution.

In 1856 the supreme Court of the United States of America, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (supra), determined absolutely that the white persons of the States, born or naturalized therein, are the full composition of the sovereign body of this nation.

This decision was brought about purposely, at this place in time, because there was a great deal of turbulence brewing about the freeing of slaves in the slave States, many of the several States already being in the process of freeing the slaves by their own sovereign power to legislate.

Many radicals of the day jumped on the bandwagon and the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed, allegedly for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves, as they believed the Thirteenth Amendment would only apply to the Southern States, until it backfired on them and they discovered it would apply to the Northern States as well.

But, the Thirteenth Amendment had a much more purposeful design, which would not be revealed to the average citizen until the deception was complete. The design was to franchise non-citizens while centralizing power in the United States Government, to the deprivation of the States and their citizens (We, the People).

The bleeding hearts of the media had a hay day pleading for the alleged rights of the non-citizens that were enslaved. Thus, pressing for adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, the design of which had less to do with freeing the slaves than anything else.

The people were deceived by the cries for mercy for the slaves, to such an extent that many chose up sides. Not only did the people choose sides, but the States were convinced to do the same. As a result the sovereign bodies of the United States were induced to suffer a Civil War among themselves, that killed more White United States Citizens than have ever been killed in any war in our history. Little did the Northern States realize they were fighting a war with the hidden purpose of destroying their own sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of their white citizenry.

The Thirteenth Amendment was adopted as a result of the Civil War, even though it was proposed prior to the seccession of the Southern States, and a new nation was formed, although, all believed that the same national government was merely re-established with slavery abolished. (For simplicity, this newly established government will hereafter be referred to as the Federal Government or the Fed).

Prior to this time all amendments, made by provision of Article V of the U.S. Constitution were for the purpose of restricting or clarifying the power of the United States Government and considering that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights does an ample job of defining the purpose of the amending provisions of Article V, this is prima facia evidence that the purpose of Article V was strictly to allow the States to hold the United States Government in check as new ways and new perversions were conceived to destroy the limitations of the Constitution, the principle of which was judicial misconstruction of the Constitution. (see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) which led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment for clarification of Article III U.S. Constitution, and Hans v. Louisiana, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) for judicial construction of the Eleventh Amendment).

But the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment gave new power, creating the Fed, rather than restricting power to maintain the government for the United States of America as formed. This grant of power is completely foreign to the intent of the Preambles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The second section of the Thirteenth Amendment opened up a despotic can of worms that are are wiggling more vigorously today than ever. Under this unconstitutuional (de facto) power, State statutes and Constitutional provisions were declared void and citizens who had never been subjected to Fed. jurisdiction in the persons before, were being jailed and sued at the instance of non-citizens under new feeral law. (see The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by Horace Edger Flack, Ph.D. (1065)).

The radicals feared that their revolutionary acts would be declared unconstitutional, so they pressed on with tproposal of the Fourteenth Amendment, under very questionable if not fraudulant conditions, to solidify this adultery of their own nation (race) and sovereignty. Again alleging, as they had in civil rights statutes, that power existed within the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment to proceed to make the Fourteenth Amendment. Adoption of the Fourteenth was then secured by military occupation of the Southern States, two years after hostilities of the Civil war had ceased. In the words of the then President Johnson in a veto address against the reconstruction act, these rebels were imposing "a Bill of Attainder against nine million" citizens of several States in the United States of America.

Now you might question my statement, that the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment formed a new (de facto) government. But, I raise this question, if the United States government had power to legislate in matters of Black persons and State sovereignty, why was it deemed nedessary to vest new power in Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by its second section? Aren't Congress' power to legislate and enforce legislation vested by Article I? Or, did Congress know they were perverting the Constitution and dismantling our sovereignty as "one People," and that no such power existed?

This first grab for sovereignty was completed with the adoption of th Fifteenth Amendment, which alleges to give political franchise to other than white persons. In short, the chain of events to this point were: (1) Free slaves; (2) Congress claimed the power to legislate not only to free slaves, but to confer further privileges upon those persons previously held in slavery, in violation of State Constitution which secured the right to vote to only the male white population; (3) Congress claimed power to make their own citizens; (4) in violation of the Preamble to the Constitution, Congress claimed power to confer political franchise to those persons they claimed to confer citizenship to. This effectively disfranchised the Northern as well as Southern States, of their sovereignty to legislate on matters that had been established to be exclusively within their sovereign authority for close to a century past.

Not only did Congress pervert the Constitution with a purposeful design to do so, but gave political franchise (unlawfully) to those persons that would maintain the Feds' de facto power.

Because provision was made for a new class of citizenship, a citizenship of "persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (see Fourteenth Amendment section 1) i.e. jurisdiction of the Fed, Congress saw a new capability of taxation, some forty years later, in the form of an excise on this statutory privilege of (de facto) citizenship. This realization led to the proposal and adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, for the purpose of collecting the tax. The Sixteenth amendment contains the same provision granting the Fed power as is contained in the Thrirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The sovereignty of "We, the People" was thus dissipated and those obtaining the sovereignty, by personal privilege legislation, were being taxed for the privilege as were corporations for exercising the privilege of incorporation.

For those hidden figures that were instrumental in creating this de facto government (the Fed), the centralization of power wasn't sufficient to meet their ends. The reason it wasn't sufficient was because after the emotional hostility had ceased, for the most part, the States still had enough power, while being free of ignorant emotional public opinion, to reverse the process that had been set in motion. The State legislatures still maintained their ability to exercise sovereignty in the Senate of the U.S. Congress and through election of the President. One way the States could regain the sovereignty already lost was by only placing Senatos to the Senate that would refuse to appropriate the money necessary to maintain the Fed's de facto authority and the Fed's acts against the sovereignty of the States and their unlawful sovereign bodies, thereby choking the Fed out of existance so the lawful United States government could return to power. The State legislatures had this ability because they elected the Senators for Congress as provided by Article I Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof ..." Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution

To disable the State Legislatures in this area the rebels of the de facto Fed and their hidden consorts devised the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed the de facto citizens, created by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, to elect Senators by popular vote, depriving the State legislatures of another foothold of sovereignty. Because not all the States would allow this latest perversion, the Seventeenth Amendment was declared a part of the Constitution on ratification of three fourths of the several States in violation of the Fifth Article of the United States Constitution, which required consent of every State that was deprived of their legislatures' suffrage in the Senate.

"... no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal sufferage in the senate." Article V, U.S. Constitution

In 1920, to further perpetuate this scheme, the rebels added a new twist to their method of attack on this once white Christian nation. An attack which would reach into our very homes and families. Not only in violation of the common law and the Constitution, but also in violation of God's Law concerning the fair sex.

This new twist was the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women suffrage. Not only did this set husand and wife at odds to nullify each other's votes at the polls and cause disruption over politics in the home (no man can serve two masters, Matthew 6:24), but it created a new political franchise that would place women, exercising suffrage, in the same legal status as the non-white, non-citiaens that had previously been politically franchised by the Fed.

The rebel, usurping, manipulators understand human nature very well as they and their ancestors have already shown in past history, (1) a female is generally of a tender nature filled with compassions governed more easily by emotion that could be manipulated through the media, without this special tenderness a woman just wouldn't be a woman; (2)they knew this would weaken the family structure by giving husband and wife the opportunity not to act as one as required by their vows; and (3) they knew they had an emotional lever on women where their children were concerned, and because of this the woman might vote for measures that could be given the appearance of providing immediate security for their families, while further depriving the family of the oneness to act as a whole when exercising the sovereignty to govern and maintain their sovereign common law rights intact. Little does anyone realize that when the women's vote is being appealed to pass legislation, that in many cases, passage of the legislation would harm their children in the unforseen future while giving the appearance of immediate benefits, thereby breaking down family government.

The white males' sovereignty, in their persons, still was not completely subjected to the jurisdiction of the Fed, so in 1935 after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the artificial depression these rebel usurpers were able to create through the Federal Reserve Act, the Social Security Act was passed into law by the Fed. Congress clamined, once more, to make such legislation under all the aforementioned de facto powers and franchises which allegedly consolidated sovereignty in the Fed's hands.

All of these perversions of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were now brought to bear upon the last vestage of the lawful sovereign body, the white male common law citizen. An artificial depression forced or coerced the majority to enroll in a policy of social insurance, that is sign up for Social Security benefits in order that they and theirs might survive this crisis. Some citizens believed governmental authorities and social leaders that enrolling was legally compulsory while others probably enrolled because they were led to believe it was the patriotic thing to do. By the individual signature of each white male citizen the rebels collected most of the remaining Sovereign body of the de jure (lawful) government into the camp of the rebels. They were now, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (the jurisdiction of the Fed), that is, subject in their person and in all their personal affairs, as were those persons previously franchised by the previous unconstitutional and totally revolutionary acts of these rebels which have perverted our nation and its government.

The final major proposal these rebels made against the lawful Constitution of the United States of America was the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which provides for the popular election of the President of the United States. The last chance of the State legislatures to choke the Fed through putting a man in office that would veto appropriation for Fed rebels' ends, was dismembered. Also by popular vote of Senators and the President, every person that exercises the franchise agrees that the de fracto Fed as designed is the de jure (lawful) government for them.

I feel that the acts and omissions that can readily be seen in the last 120 years of our history prove a positive design and almost a full completion of a plan to destroy the governments and sovereignties formed and protected under the United States constitution, its Bill of Rights and the State Constitutions. The plan is clear, (1) devise means to divest the sovereign body and the State governments of their power and sovereignty; (2) create new sovereignties and political franchises which by operation of law automatically vest all power in the central government, while totally subjecting themselves to it; and, (3) impement the plan slowly and methodically as it can be made acceptable by means of coercive economic, political and falsely reported moral conditions, with use of the media to report the views of the rebels while depriving the lawful sovereigns access to any media by which they could report to their fellow citizens.

I believe it is clear under these conditions that (1) the State and local governments are mere subdivisions of the Fed, disguised as States; (2) the 10 regions of Federal regional government are now exercising the power of the States with all sovereignty completely vested in the Fed; (3) "We, the People" are now considered subjects of the Fed; (4) the United States government today for the most part is the de facto Fed look-alike disguised as the lawful government, intended by the Framers, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the original State Constitutions and We the People (see the definitions of de facto and de jure government in legal dictionaries); and (5) if the lawful sovereign body do not remove themselves from this rebel jurisdiction and assert their power and sovereignty, we will be controlled by a despotism that will make the despotism of King George in the 1700s look like a day in the park.

Before I go any further, I want you, the reader, to understand that although the Bible does not condemn slavery as a sin, I feel it is mischief not becoming a Christian nation; that I in no way advocate any violent hostility towards those who have assumed a sovereignty offered to them; that I have only made references to women's suffrage because I feel that women, through their husbands or fathers after a degree of private deliberation can maintain their political rights and the family unit as one through the vote the male merely casts at the poll for his family, thus maintaining the commands of the Almight God of Israel; and because I am dismayed at what a woman's legal character (status) is reduced to by exercising direct suffrage.

I have made a great deal of references to those I term "rebels" or "usurpers" who perverted out Constitution and dismantled the lawful sovereign body of the United States of America. But I want to be clearly understood on the matter of who is to blame and these rebels cannot be held totally to blame.

This happened to "We, the People" who are only white Christian people from the begining of our nation because we be have turned our face away from Almighty God and His only Son Jesus the Christ. In times of trouble we turn to men and earthly things, instead of God, to be saved, not only from major disaster but from mere inconveniences. Why do we turn to the clay, when God as the potter can cure all defects in the clay while the clay can do nothing by itself? The Christians (God's children, the choosen) of our nation, including myself, have allowed every kind of perversion and violation of God's Law to go unchallenged in our presence for fear of persecution. We have violated God's Law ourselves either by acts or omissions.

Had we and our ancestors followed God's Law and leaned on Him and His Son Jesus the Christ, the Holy Spirit thus coming upon us, what we do and don't do might not come to evil. Just as an honest man cannot be swindled because of his honesty and lack of greed, a man who walks in the path of God cannot fall in the ditch of evil. So I submit to you, the hearts of God's people must return to Him with a conviction unto mortal death. Then God might have mercy upon our nation and remove the tyrany of this rebel de facto central government from us.

"If my people which are called by my Name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." II Chronicles 7:14

Finally, I offer this supplication on behalf of God's people:

Dear God, the creator of all things, He Who brought Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand, I pray that You will again turn Your face unto they children, Your people, and leave Thy wrath that we have caused to be kindled against us and be merciful unto Thy nation and again show us our heritabe, that we again might walk in Thy Holy Spirit and love Thee above all things, and follow Thy Law, for the sake of Thy beloved Son Jesus the Christ and Thy Holy Name. Please forgive us and accept my supplication. In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, Thy only Son. Amen.

In the love of our Savior Jesus Christ,


Randy L. Geiszler

Robert W. Wangrud

In Association with BEHOLD! Newsletter

This article may be copied, printed and distributed freely only in its entirety and reference must be given to www.beholdonline.info so the reader may obtain more information. Reprints are also available from Jerry.