Behold! Pamphlet - October, 1988
The purpose and intent of this discourse is to show the reader
the whole picture of what has happened to our beloved nation.
||"The Christian religion is the established religion by our
form of government and all denominations are placed on an equal
footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious
liberty." Runkel v. Winemiller, et al, 4 H & McH. (1799)
||"It is conceded that this inhibition applies exclusively to
the state. But that term presents a complex idea. A state is a
sort of a trinity; it exists, acts, and speaks in three capacities: legislative, executive, and judicial. What is forbidden to
it in one capacity is forbidden to it in each and all. It may not
infringe this article by legislation, but it may equally do so by
its courts or its executive authorities." Ex parte Reynolds et
al, Federal Case No. 11,720.
In the birth of America the "People" "Ordained" and "Established"
a Christian nation, adopting the Christian common law as the
supreme Law of the Land. The system of law and jurisprudence
which they adopted was the common law of England, but only in so
far as it was in agreement with the law of the Bible. The Founding Fathers, like their English and German ancestors, had a
profound respect for the Holy Bible and the principles of liberty
stated therein. They also had a profound hatred of "democracy".
In the view of the Founding Fathers, the political realm was
regarded as a mere reflection or extension of the word of the
Heavenly. For, religion is the great state-building principle. The American colonists created a new state because they were
already a church and that church was the soul of the state it created. The fathers held as Divine doctrine that governments were
made for the benefit of the governed, and not for that of the
governors, who were to regard themselves as the servants of God
appointed for the benefit of His people.
The prosperity and happiness of the Nation was seen to be a
direct outcome of its religion and ruin was inevitably seen to
follow vice and sin. It was their view that the first duty of a
government was to support, teach, and practice the religion of
the Nation, by public recognition and honour paid to it in the
outward forms of its worship, and by using it as the groundwork
of the education of the people; and by putting a social stigma
upon all deviation from it. It was widely believed that failure
to adhere to these principles would inevitably lead to the destruction of the nation.
This, then, was the prevailing view of history, law and religion
at the time the American Republic was founded and subsequently
during its first hundred years of existence. The organic law
completely embodied these principles for it was wholly based upon
the same authority that taught them, id est, the Christian Holy
||"Next to the power of religion, a strict administration of
justice is the best security of morals. Foreign influence will
not greatly prevail, as long as morals remain uncorrupted. The
British common law is, therefore, one of the bulwarks against
that corruption of manners, which will invite foreign influence,
in spite of all the frothy harangues that will ascribe it to the
wrong causes. A people thoroughly licentious and corrupt, (and
democracy will make them such), will be betrayed, and foreign
states will reward demagogues for managing their passions to
mislead them. It is by practising on their hopes and fears, that
such men gain an influence over the people, and after they have
gained, they have it for sale." Works of Fisher Ames, ed. W. B.
Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1983 (1854), pgs 297-98,
THE ANCIENT PRINCIPLES
The common law of England, in its purest and earliest form, was
Germanic and Celtic in origin. Beyond that its roots go back into
the mists of history. It appears over and over again in the
records and traditions of all the Israelite (White) nations. In
the ancient records it is always described and couched in the
context of a fundamental law of divine origin associated with the
governance of all nature. The founding fathers of the American
Republic referred to it as "the law of nature and nature's God".
This phrase is lifted directly from the "Lex Salica", the common
law of the German tribes that over ran Europe as well as Scandanavia and eventually settled in large portions of what was then
Britain, later to become England.
Both Franklin and Jefferson stated that the substantive principles of representative government upon which the American Constitution was founded were taken from two sources. The first was
the system of constitutional government practiced by ancient
Israel under the leadership of first Moses, and later Joshua.
||"Liberty ... is the essential condition and guardian of religion; and it is in the history of the Chosen People, accordingly,
that the first illustrations of my subject are obtained. The
government of the Israelites was a Federation, held together by
no political authority, but by the unity of race and faith, and
founded, not on physical force, but on a voluntary covenant. The
principle of self-government was carried out not only in each
tribe, but in every group of at least 120 families; and there was
neither privilege of rank nor inequality before the law. Monarchy
was so alien to the primitive spirit of the community that it was
resisted by Samuel in that momentous protestation and warning
which all the kingdoms of Asia and many of the kingdoms of Europe
have unceasingly confirmed." Selected Writings of Lord Acton, ed.
J. Rufus Pears; (Liberty Classics, 1985), pg. 7, Vol. 1
The second source was the institutes of government of the Anglo-Saxons which were virtually identical to those of the ancient Israelites.
||"The heroic age of Greece confirms it, and it is still more
conspicuously true of Teutonic Europe. Wherever we can trace the
earlier life of the Aryan nations we discover germs which favouring circumstance and assiduous culture might have developed into
free societies. They exhibit some sense of common interest in
common concerns, little reverence for external authority, and an
imperfect sense of the function and supremacy of the state."
Ibid, pg. 9.
Jefferson's historical studies brought him to the conclusion that
ancient Israel was the first nation in history to have a representative government; he also discovered that 1500 years later
the Anglo-Saxons were living under a system which was almost
identical. Was there a connection? Were these two peoples so
separated by time and geography related?
Franklin and Jefferson both proposed a national seal for our new
nation which portrayed on one side the children of Israel in the
wilderness led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
On the other side of the proposed seal was portrayed:
||"Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs, from whom we claim the
honour of being descended and whose political principles and form
of government we have assumed." Richard S. Patterson and Richardson Dougal, The Eagle and the Shield: A History of the Great Seal
of the United States, Washington; U.S. Department of State, 1976,
The motto which Jefferson and Franklin proposed to go on the
national seal was
||"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God".
Jefferson wrote extensively at the time about the need for a
renaissance of Anglo-Saxon primitive institutions on the new
continent. He considered the American Revolution as nothing but
the reclamation of the Anglo-Saxon birthright of which the colonists had been deprived by "a long train of abuses". On August
13, 1776, Jefferson wrote to Edmund Pendleton to convince him
that Virginia must abolish the remnants of feudalism and return
to the "ancient principles":
||"Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of
the feudal system? Has not every restitution of the ancient Saxon
laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at
once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most
perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before
the eighth century?" Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas
Jefferson, 20 Vols., Princeton University Press, 1950, Vol. 1,
Jefferson even studied the language of the Anglo-Saxons so that
he might read their laws in the original tongue. In a letter to
his old tutor, George Wythe, dated November 1, 1778, Jefferson
||"... the extracts from the Anglo-Saxon law, the sources of
the Common law, I wrote in the original for my own satisfaction;
but I have added Latin or liberal English translations." Ibid,
Vol. 2, pg. 504.
THE BIBLICAL CONNECTION
The Anglo-Saxons originated in the area of the Black Sea in the
1st century B.C. and from there spread all across Northern Europe. This was the same area to which the northern ten tribes of
ancient Israel had been transported by their Assyrian conquerors
some 100 years earlier. The obvious implication of these historical facts is that the ancient Israelites and the latter day
Anglo-Saxons are one and the same people. The two peoples share
many of the same cultural practices and preserved the same unique
institutes of government. The Anglo-Saxons organized themselves
into units identical to those of the ancient Israelites described
in the Old Testament. As called for by Biblical Law, their society was organized upon the foundation of the family and the tribal
concept of clan, sept, kith and kin.
Like the ancient Israelites, the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen with certain inalienable rights
and duties intended for the preservation of blood and soil. Just
as in the Bible, their society was organized on the basis of
units of 10:
||a.The head of 10 families was called a tithing-man.
b.The head of 50 families was called a vil-man.
c.The head of 100 families was called a hundred man.
d.The head of 1000 families was called eolderman, later shortened
e.The territory occupied by 1,000 families was called a shire. All the families in a shire (soil) were usually of the same clan
(blood). This was identical to the division of the land and the
organization accorded to the tribes described in the Bible.
f.The administrative assistant to the earl was called the "shire
reef", now called the sheriff.
All laws, as well as the election of leaders, had to be by the
common consent of the people. Authority granted to a chieftan in
time of war was extremely limited and was taken away from him as
soon as the emergency passed. Again, as in the Bible, their
system of justice was based upon the principle of payment of
damages (restitution) to the victim rather than calling it a
crime against the whole people. They recognized all the capital
crimes designated in the Bible and their punishments were the
For documentation as to the foregoing see: (1) Colin Rhys Lovell,
English Constitutional and Legal History, Oxford University
Press, 1962; and (2) Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, London: Longman, etc., 1836, pgs. 221 - 225.
From the foregoing historical authorities, it is evident that the
common law and the law of God are synonymous, the former having
originated in the latter. It is also evident that these things
were all part of our ancestral birthright long before the advent
of the Roman Church in Europe and the Isles. In fact, these
cultural, historical and genetic associations can be traced
directly back to the time of the classical civilization of ancient Israel and beyond.
||"... 'in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the
law of God, which it is said was causa causans,' and the court
cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on
a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was
founded in God's revelation of that law to Moses." The State v.
Chandler, 2 Del 553, 555, 556 (1837).
||"... The eternal principles of natural religion are part of
the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are
part of the common law; so that any person reviling, subverting,
or ridiculing them, may be prosecuted at common law ..." Ibid,
Thus, as originally adopted in England from both the Celtic and
Germanic influences, this common law embraced all the fundamental
tenets of Biblical Law as to property and the rights of the
||"By the Common Law and by the Bible, which is the foundation
of the Common Law ..." Wylly v. Collins, 9 Ga 223, 237 (1851).
However, as early as the fifteenth century various jewish practices with regard to debt, usury, taxation of the land, inheritance of the land and mortgages (the death gage) had begun to
creep into the common law of England via the influence of jewish
money lenders attached to the throne. These principles of jewish
law had their origins in the Babylonian Talmud and not the Bible.
These practices were correctly perceived by the American colonists as alien and contrary to Biblical law and all the principles of liberty championed therein. For this reason the common
law of England was considered by the colonists as defiled and corrupted everywhere the talmudic influence had touched it.
The American Founding Fathers utterly rejected and scorned these
influences. They were well aware that the practices of the jews
came not from the Old Testament, but rather from the Talmud and
other spurious rabbinical sources. They knew that Christ had
referred to the Babylonian teachings of the jews as "the traditions of the elders" and had condemned these practices as being
not only contrary to the Law of God but of actually making God's
Law of no effect.
The Talmud was considered to be the complete antithesis of Biblical law and, when adopting the common law for the new Republic,
the Founding Fathers specifically rejected anything and everything that had the slightest odor or stench of jewish influence.
THE STANDARD OF JUSTICE
They removed everything that was contrary to the Christian understanding of God's law as set forth in both the Old and New Testaments and it was their stated intention that the justice embraced
by the Constitution would be defined in terms of Christian morality and none other. They fully adopted and implemented the Law of
God not only as the judicial standard for measuring and determining justice, but also for the very organization of the government
||"The people of this state, in common with the people of this
country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the
rule of their faith and practice ..." The People v. Ruggles, 8
Johnsons NY Common Law Reports 290, 294, 295.
As a matter of law, Christianity was to be the foundational
influence in all the social, political and economic aspects of
the social compact and government formed; Christianity was to
completely define and determine the very organization and structure of the government.
||"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been
a part of the common law of Pennsylvania ..." Updegraph v. The
Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant & Rawles Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports 400.
||"The distinguished commentator on the laws of England informs us, that upon the foundations of the law of nature and the
law of revelation, all human law depends, 1 Bl. Com. 42. The municipal law looks to something more than merely the protection of
lives, the liberty, and the property of our people. Regarding
Christianity as part of the law of the land, it respects and
protects its institutions; and assumes likewise to regulate the
public morals and decency of the community." Bell v. The State, 1
Swan (Tenn) 42, 44 (1851).
The moral, ethical and spiritual force of Christianity was so
interwoven into the fabric of the Republic that one could not be
separated from the other without destroying both. Thus, the
ancient common law adopted as the foundation of the American
Republic, being fully predicated upon the Christian revelation of
the scriptures and the divine commandments therein, was rightfully referred to as "Christian common law".
||"Every system of law known to civilized society generated
from or had as its component one of three well known systems of
ethics, pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its
subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system,
the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice
motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we
dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal
controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss, 3 So 2d 727, 728
THE REPUBLIC AND THE FAITH
Thus, the colonists "Established" their state constitutions
within the principles of the common law (as measured against the
Bible) to assure that the nation would be a Christian Republic.
||"The Christian religion is the established religion by our
form of government and all denominations are placed on an equal
footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious
Liberty." Runkel v. Winemiller, et. al., 4 Hc. Mch.
What does Justice Chase mean "The Christian religion is the
established religion by our form of government?"
Isn't it true that Christians believe that our Father is composed
of three co-equal parts in one whole: the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost? Isn't this a major tenet of the Christian faith?
The constitution of Delaware (1776) clearly points out that this
is a part of the Christian faith embraced by our forefathers. It
requires that the following declaration be made before taking a
seat in the legislature, entering upon the execution of an office, or occupying a place of trust in the Delaware government,
||"I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for
evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and
New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." Article 22,
Delaware CoGnstitution (1776).
Thus, the oath requires three fundamental declarations:
||a) A belief in the divinity of Jesus the Christ;
b) A belief in the divine origins of both the Old and New Testaments; and,
c) A belief in the triune nature of our God; the principle of
three in one.
Upon these three points the founding fathers defined what was and
was not "Christian" and organized our government.
The government in a Christian nation must be fashioned after its
head, i.e., the one true God declared in the Delaware Constitution and in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Thus,
we find the source of three co-equal branches of government in a
Christian republic. Now you understand why Mr. Justice Chase
said that "the Christian religion is the established religion by
our form of government" (a Christian Republic). Obviously, if
Christianity is the established religion, then it is also the
protected religion. Consider that the nature of the sovereignty
determines the nature of the government both as to structure as
well as function. This is so because the form of government must
follow the form and practice of the religion that created it and
gave it birth. And don't you doubt for one minute that absolutely
ALL governments are founded upon and find their origins in religion! Even that of the Soviet Union! It follows then that a
system of government and law founded upon the principles of
Christianity is fundamentally duty bound to protect and nurture
Christianity. Otherwise it has no reason to justify its continued
A government which acts contrary to its own founding principles
and pollutes the wellsprings of its own creation must decline
into chaos, anarchy and destruction. It is impossible for such a
government to bring about order and harmony in anything. It is an
abomination! And the people of the land shall know the same end
as the government they tolerated and supported. The law of nature
and divine justice will not be defied! We SHALL reap all that we
||"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth that shall he also reap." Gal. 6:7
In Leviticus 26:22, the penalties for flouting the commands of
the Everliving God are clearly set out.
||"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you
of your children, and destroy your cattle, and shall make you few
in number, and your highways shall be desolate."
A REPUBLIC WITH NO FAITH
As a means of contrast, let's review the constitution of the
Soviet Union. There we find that only one branch of government
holds the governing power. The USSR, being officially un-Christian or an anti-Christ nation, does not depend upon the design
embodied in Christian doctrine for the establishment of their
nation and government.
||"The highest organ of state power in the USSR is the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR." Ch. III, art. 30, (1939).
||"In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the
church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school
from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of
anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."
U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. X, art. 124, (1939).
Apparently there must be more than one type of republic. The
U.S.S.R. is a "republic". The United States of America is a
"republic". But, by their respective forms of government, they
are clearly differentiated as two contrasting types thereof.
We're told that the U.S.S.R. is becoming more like the U.S.A.
This is a lie; just the opposite is true. The truth is that
America today is, by the process of legislative fiat, being
transformed from a Christian republic into a socialist anti-Christ republic, both in law and in fact. Why do you think that
in America today "May day" is celebrated as "Law day"? The answer
is because what was done in Russia through wholesale murder is
being accomplished here through the process of statutory legislation. They are both revolutionary processes; one is just quieter
than the other and has the advantage of stealth.
How is this being accomplished? First, the socialists in this
nation had to convert the constitutions of the several states
from their common law (Christian) form to the socialist (anti-Christ) form of republic:
||1. By removing the indivisible "nation" principle; that is, the
recognition of free whites as a the citizenry, thereby destroying
the principle of one race indivisible and unmixed; and,
2. By removing the common law jurisdiction from the courts which:
(a) gave particular recognition to and enforced the rights of
that citizenry; and (b) recognized Christian doctrine as the
standard whereby justice was to be measured and decreed; and,
3. Neutralize the common law jurisdiction of the counties and
4. Remove all State militias; and,
5. By bringing state government under the full power of one
branch and making it the "highest organ of state power."
The socialists, if they believe in any thing at all, believe in
Satan's form of government; one master with sole control. Satan's government demands total centralization of all power,
authority and responsibility. But that isn't all. It also demands
wholesale miscegenation; mixing of the races. Satan's government
always demands the destruction of that which God has created and
separated and it is always based upon the egalitarian principles
of internationalism; especially where the white race is concerned. Satan loves confusion. Our Father loves order. Our Father
says that miscegenation is confusion and an abomination.
||"Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter
thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou
take unto thy son." Deut. 7:3.
||"I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other
people." Lev. 20:24.
||"... So shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the
people that are upon the face of the earth." Exodus 33:16.
Satan's form of government will not and cannot tolerate individual responsibility and liberty, nor will it tolerate their mandatory correlaries: purity, cleanliness and obedience to YAH. A
citizen in Satan's government has no responsibility and no liberty; only the duties of a slave under compelled performance.
By way of contrast, our Father's form of government is founded
upon the principle of total decentralization with complete individual responsibility and self-government; that is, unfettered
liberty with corresponding responsibilities and duties, but no
compelled performance except by contract. Our Father's government
demands complete separation of the races. Satan's government
demands mixing of the races. Satan's government also allows,
encourages and finances the destruction of your children and
would-be grand children through abortion. Think about the contrasts in that. Satan is the destroyer and he persuades you to
exercise your own free will and destroy yourself by going after
"strange flesh" and "evil practices". What is abortion if it
isn't ritual murder and child sacrifice? The principles of the
Father's Word demand separation in all things as a prerequisite
to achieving order and harmony. Satan demands the mixing of all
things as a prerequisite to achieving confusion and ultimately
your destruction. One of Satan's ancient names is "the chaos
monster". The name perfectly describes his nature and purpose.
But the choice is always yours and it is always couched in terms
of whether you will or will not obey the Father's Law.
In other words, your free will is still intact and the test of it
is the willingness of your heart to adhere to and obey the Father's Law as the focal point and guide for your life. For it is
our own disobedience to the Father's Life Law that has allowed
the socialists to dismantle our Christian Republic.
The Socialists are accomplishing the implementation of Satan's
form of government and all the necessary steps thereto (listed
above) through their understanding and manipulation of Article
IV, Section 4, of the Constitution for the united States of
||"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or
of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic Violence." Article IV, Section 4, Constitution
for the united States of America (1787).
Notice that our constitution does not say what kind of "republic"
Congress must guarantee. Obviously that was left to the several
states to establish. But our constitution did organize and
establish the government upon the principle of three co-equal
branches thereby indicating that our republics were to be Christian in both form and function.
||"Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar
propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis,
on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be,
what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the
religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian
religion is a stranger to mere despotic power ..." Commentaries on
the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, Vol. III, De
Capo Press Reprints (1970) 724, 725.
The Christian foundations of our Republican form of government
are further attested to by the fact that (according to Justice
Story and numerous other authorities) the First Amendment only
||"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance,
much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by
prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage
of the national government." Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States, Joseph Story, Vol. 1, De Capo Press Reprints
(1970) 443, 444.
||"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as
some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to
punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of
Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the
case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of
the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon
the doctrines of worship of those imposters." The People v.
Ruggles, 8 Johnsons NY Common Law Reports 290, 294, 295.
And to that list of "imposters" you can add the jews and all
their talmudic filth and mayhem.
Thus, we come to two points. Firstly, in order to claim the
protection of the Amendment, the sect in question had to be
Christian. The Amendment extended no protection whatsoever to any
other religion. Secondly, in order to substantiate the claim to
being "Christian", the beliefs of the sect had to be founded upon
acceptance of the divinity of Jesus the Christ, had to be grounded in both the Old and New Testaments, and had to adhere to the
principle of "three in one". The logical implications of the
latter fully presupposed the first two. Therefore, a professed
belief in the Christian principle of a triune God was the basic
test as to religious conviction and the right to hold office.
What of the numerous denominations within Christianity with so
many varied tenets and beliefs? How do we take their measure and
ascertain whether or not they may be cloaked with the protective
mantle of the Constitution? Let's look at the definition of the
||"A class, society or collection of individuals called by the
same name; as in a denomination of Christians ..." American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1828).
Here is the point: as a matter of constitutional law, the word
"Christian" can only refer to those denominations that hold and
adhere to the basic doctrine of one God in three persons and find
the authority for their faith in the Old and New Testaments of
the Holy Bible. Thus, if a sect calls itself "Christian" but does
not hold to the doctrine of the trinity, then it does not qualify
for protection and can claim no guarantees under the First Article of the Bill of Rights. In other words, without the doctrine
of three in one, such a sect is not a Christian denomination
within the eyes of the law because their tenets are contrary to
the constitutionally professed doctrines of faith which established our form of government and gave it life! Of course interpretations of the Bible might vary from denomination to denomination but they must, in order to be accepted as Christian in terms
of constitutional law, hold to that one fundamental belief and
all the implications that logically flow from it.
Go back and look again at the confession of faith required by
Article 22 of the original Delaware Constitution. Read carefully
these words: "... in God the Father, and Jesus Christ his only
Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore ..."
This is the testimony of our forefathers as to the path they
followed. The evidence of their faith and discipline is all about
us. We need but open our eyes and look.
||"It (Christianity) was part of the common law 'so far that
any person reviling, subverting or ridiculing it might be prosecuted at common law,' as Lord Mansfield has declared; because, in
the judgment of our English ancestors and their judicial tribunals, he who reviled, subverted or ridiculed Christianity, did an
act which struck at the foundation of their civil society, and
tended by its necessary consequences as they believed, to disturb
that common peace of the land of which...the common law was the
preserver...To sustain the soundness of their opinion, their descendants point us to the tears and blood of revolutionary France
during the reign of terror, when infidelity triumphed and the
abrogation of the Christian faith was succeeded by the worship of
the goddess of reason, and they aver that without this religion
no nation has ever yet continued free. They insist too, that all
history demonstrates that no nation without the light of their
common law, has ever been able to preserve any system of rational
and well regulated liberty." The State v. Chandler, 2 Del 553,
The Constitution for the united States of America was intended to
be read and interpreted so that it would harmonize with itself.
One provision was not to overturn or conflict with another.
Something like "a house divided cannot stand" seems to be appropriate to define the principle.
The deceiver began to distort the meaning of Article IV, Section
4, by telling our People that they could establish republics in
the states that were not Christian in form, e.g., governments
where the legislature is the "highest organ of state power."
(Note: some of today's state constitutions even allow the legislature to amend the constitution without a vote of the people.)
The key to dispelling the lie about Article IV, Section 4, is to
show that historically, when petitioning for admission to the
Union, each state submitted constitutions establishing the three
co-equal branch form of government as a prerequisite to admission. That is to say, to become a state in the Union, the People
thereof submitted constitutions that by design made each branch
equivalent in power, while exercising different functions.
THE REPUBLIC AND THE RACE
The first deception and usurpation took place when Congress began
authorizing statehood predicated upon state constitutions that
did not follow the common law principle of designating one race
to govern. The first examples of that were the admissions of such
states as Washington, Montana and others. This was the beginning
of the conversion (or should I say perversion) of our "nation" to
a socialist republic, a republic within the framework of international law.
The lie put forth was, that to establish a one race republic (one
race governing) was prejudicial and un-Christian. The People were
told by the preachers that the Biblical mandate to be "separated"
was no longer valid. But that was merely the first in a whole
series of alterations implemented to defeat the common law form
of Republic and enslave the Citizens thereof. Alteration of the
Republic required three main points of attack. These were and
||1. The "People" must be convinced that miscegenation (race mixing) is authorized by the law of our Father in Heaven, and thus
is condoned by the Christian faith;
2. The "People" must be convinced to alter the constitutions for
their state and the united States of America to coincide with
this new interpretation of Christian doctrine;
3. The co-equal character of the three branches of government
must be removed and one branch must be made the "highest organ of
state power"; or put another way, one branch must be given power
over the other two. Of course, the People must either be persuaded that this is acceptable or kept in such a state of ignorance
that they don't know that they no longer have three co-equal
branches. The task of persuasion can be accomplished either
through propaganda or by force of arms. The current system has
been put in place through stealth, deceit, fraud and treason. The
task of "persuasion" will only become necessary when the fraud is
generally discovered and the legitimacy of the system is widely
challenged and denied by a significant portion of the citizenry.
Up till now, the enemies of the Republic could claim that we gave
our consent to all this. When it becomes obvious that we did not
and the illusion can no longer be maintained, then the die shall
be cast and they must act to preserve themselves.
ONE RACE, ONE FAITH, ONE LAW
Fact one, to be within the framework of a common law republic,
one race must govern (hold the sovereignty). Alter this fact and
you must alter all other provisions of your constitutions. Alter
the provisions of your constitutions, where the government is one
of law (that is, one that exists by written constitution), as in
our case, then you alter the government itself. But bear in mind
that for this to be possible it must be preceded by a change in
religion, id est, from Christianity to "judeo-Christianity".
Take for instance the thirteenth amendment. Its stated purpose
was to end slavery in the united States. But was the thirteenth
amendment necessary to accomplish the abolition of slavery?
Why were people of African decent taken into slavery? Because
nowhere on the face of this earth was there an organized government that existed for the protection of that race. There was no
government or other organized authority among them that spoke for
and represented the interests of that race among the nations of
the earth and could be recognized as a government by the law of
nations (international law). Thus, being unorganized and completely helpless, from an international power stand point, they
became fair game to all those nations that had organized governments, called civilized nations.
John Marshal, one of the early Chief Justices of the supreme
Court, was a member of a society organized to help the persons of
African decent. The avowed purpose of that organization was to
help them establish a government founded solely for them (Africans) thereby securing unto them, and only them, freedom from
slavery forever. Once an organized government had been established that spoke for the African race and possessed the lawful
power to make treaties with other nations (races), then they
would have standing under international law and could be afforded
the protection due them by the law of nations. They would no
longer be a prey to slavery.
John Marshall drafted a constitution for the Republic of Liberia
which had been drafted for the above express purpose. He and the
society he belonged to took 500 Negro families to Liberia and
these families "ordained" and "established" their own constitution for a government that was to be of, for, and by, the black
race and none other. The constitution they adopted was predicated, like our own, upon the common law principle of like after
like and kind after kind. They became an organized black nation
that could be recognized by the law of nations. Under this
constitution they could be free citizens forever without having
to suffer the problems inherent in integration. They had, just
as the colonists did in America, assumed a place among the powers
of the earth.
The constitution that was drafted for Liberia was modeled after
||"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration
of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic,
to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with
the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity, their natural
rights, and the blessings of life; and whenever these great
objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the
government and to take measures necessary for their safety,
prosperity, and happiness.
||"THEREFORE, we the people of the Commonwealth of Liberia, in
Africa, acknowledging with devout gratitude, the goodness of God,
in granting to us the blessings of the Christian Religion, and
political, religious and civil liberty, do, in order to secure
these blessings for ourselves and our posterity, and to establish
justice, insure domestic peace, and promote the general welfare,
hereby solemnly associate and constitute ourselves a Free, Sovereign and Independent State by the name of the REPUBLIC of LIBERIA, and do ordain and establish this Constitution for the government of the same." Preamble, Constitution of the Republic of
Liberia (July 26, 1847).
Their constitution recognized that political, religious and civil
liberty are simultaneous and interrelated and are, in fact,
inseparable. Justice Story called Christianity the religion of
liberty. Obviously, he wasn't talking about "judeo-Christrianity".
The Bill of Rights in the Liberian constitution (1847) is also
very close to our own.
||"All men are born equally free and independent, and have
certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, among which
are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing
and obtaining safety and happiness." Art. I, Sec. 1, Constitution of Liberia (1847).
||"All power is inherent in the people; all free governments
are instituted by their authority and for their benefit and they
have a right to alter and reform the same when their safety and
happiness require it." Art. I, Sec. 2, Constitution of Liberia
||"All men have a natural and inalienable right to worship God
according to the dictates of their own conscience, without obstruction or molestation from others: all persons demeaning
themselves peaceably, and not obstructing others in their religious worship, are entitled to the protection of law in the free
exercise of their own religion, and no sect of Christians shall
have exclusive privileges or preference over any other sect; but
all shall be alike tolerated; and no religious test whatever
shall be required as a qualification for civil office, or the
exercise of any civil right." Art. I, Sec. 3, Constitution of
||"There shall be no slavery within this Republic. Nor shall
any citizen of this Republic, or any person resident therein,
deal in slaves, either within or without this Republic, directly
or indirectly." Art. I, Sec. 4, Constitution of Liberia (1847).
||"No place shall be searched, nor person seized on a criminal
charge, or suspicion, unless upon warrant lawfully issued, upon
probable cause supported by oath, or solemn affirmation, specially designating the place or person, and the object of the
search." Article I, Sec. 9, Constitution of Liberia (1847).
||"All elections shall be by ballot; and every male citizen of
twenty one years of age, possessing real estate, shall have the
right of suffrage." Article I, Sec. 11, Constitution of Liberia
||"The powers of this government shall be divided into three
distinct departments: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and
no person belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise
any of the powers belonging to either of the others. This section is not to be construed to include Justice of the Peace."
Article I, Sec. 4, Constitution of Liberia (1847).
Article V of the Constitution of Liberia (1847) contains further
provisions that are not only of interest, but, consistent with
what American law was in 1847.
||"The property of which a woman may be possessed at the time
of her marriage, and also that which she may afterwards become
possessed, otherwise than by her husband, shall not be held
responsible for his debts; whether contracted before or after
marriage. Nor shall the property thus intended to be secured to
the woman be alienated otherwise than by her free and voluntary
consent, and such alienation may be made by her either by sale,
devise or otherwise." Article V, Sec. 10, Constitution of Liberia (1847).
||"No person shall be entitled to hold real estate in this
Republic, unless he be a citizen of the same. Nevertheless this
article shall not be construed to apply to Colonization, Missionary, Educational, or other benevolent institutions, so long as
the property or estate is applied to its legitimate use." Article V, Sec. 12, Constitution of Liberia (1847).
||"The great object of forming these Colonies being to provide
a home for the dispersed and oppressed Children of Africa, and to
regenerate and enlighten this benighted continent, none but
Negroes, person or persons of Negro descent, shall be admitted to
citizenship in this Republic." Article V, Sec. 13, Constitution
of Liberia (1847), Amendment 1907.
Once you have read the Liberia constitution you know that Americans had given the Africans, previously held in slavery, the
greatest gift and remuneration possible to replace the degraded
position they held at the time: freedom from slavery forever, a
government by which they could maintain freedom within their
nation as well as provide it for others of their own race who
entered, and the ability to enlighten all of Africa with a republic formed and governed on Christian principles (the common law).
No better plan could have been devised to end slavery. Not only
could slavery be ended by this plan, but the resulting commotion
that took place by not following this plan could have been avoided and both races left contented, free, and completely selfgoverning.
All that really needed to be done to end slavery in the United
States was to accept a treaty with Liberia for that express
purpose, and according to Article VI, Section 2, of the constitution for the United States of America: "...all treaties made or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States
shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
Clearly the thirteenth amendment was not needed to end slavery.
Its sole purpose was to end state sovereignty. A treaty made and
performed under international law, which is the proper law for
dealing with other nations (races), would have held the character
of supreme Law but would not have changed the sovereignty or
government of the Union or the several states. Such a treaty
would have also resulted in the eventual repatriation of all who
were of black decent back to Africa. That end result would have
been inevitable and a natural consequence of the establishment of
Liberia as a black nation and the subsequent treaty therewith.
This shows you the proper use of the treaty power to end slavery.
"We the People" did not have to add to the citizenry those of
another race who where not of the "posterity". "We the People"
did not have to alter our common law republics to accomplish the
end of slavery in America. But, then, "We the People" didn't
pass the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments either, the several
state legislatures did!
Now we begin to perceive a hidden purpose in the events that lead
up to the war between the District of Columbia and the southern
states and climaxed with the alleged adoption of those amendments. Their purpose was not to free the blacks, it was to enslave us! Through the hidden ramifications of those Satanic
measures, we the white race have almost been placed in the exact
same status that the black race formerly occupied in this land.
South Africa and tiny Iceland are the last governments on this
earth that are of, by, and for, the white race and restrict their
citizenship accordingly. When they are gone, we will no longer
have a government anywhere on this earth that even pretends to
represent the white race and we will then be a prey to all comers
under the law of nations, just as blacks once were. In so far as
the feds are concerned, we are already there. That was accomplished relative to domestic politics when "free white" was
removed from the last state constitution.
RELIGION AND LAW MUST AGREE
Secondly, you cannot alter the laws of a Christian nation until
you alter that nation's Christian doctrine. A change in the
nation's laws must be preceded by change in the nations religion,
because religion is always the source of law! When you research
the early constitutions of the several states you will find all
of them established only white males as the body politic, or, in
other words; white males only could vote and hold office; white
males only could govern.
This held true since the Christian doctrine was that the head of
a household is responsible for his wife and children, being their
protector, their voice and their provider, insulating the family
from the world at large, both in law and fact. Today the state
says, "We have jurisdiction over your wife and children." The
type of situation we are experiencing today is unheard of in a
common law republic, but, common place in a socialist republic.
In a Republic where the sovereignty is predicated upon one race
and one race only, miscegenation is perceived as being treasonous. Why? Because it destroys the race comprising the sovereign
body, subverts the organization of the lawful government, and
makes the entire reason for the existence of the Republic a
nullity; a moot question if you will.
Only white males voted in our common law republic, and only black
males voted in Liberia's common law republic. In both instances,
the citizenship established by the organic law of their respective Republics was exclusive! But in a socialist state, anyone
can vote, regardless of race, color, creed, or sex. The 14th
Amendment purports to establish a uniform and universal citizenship of subjects in the socialist vein.
You have three co-equal branches of government in a common law
republic, but, only one branch of government holds the power as
"the highest organ of state power" in a socialist republic.
Our Father said His word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (See Hebrews 13:8). His government is founded upon a perpetual law, a perpetual faith and a perpetual constitution. If we
believe the scriptures and this is true, then, how and when did
Christian doctrine change from that which established a common
law republic to that which is required in a socialist republic?
Did Our Father (God) alter His law? Not according to Scripture!
Today preachers condone miscegenation, get licenses to preach,
encourage our children to get marriage licenses, social security
numbers, drivers licenses, or, in other words, the preachers tell
us and our children to surrender to Baal as they themselves have
done. If the preachers of this nation where teaching true Christian doctrine instead of pagan fables and adhering to the Christian doctrine of our forbearers, our state constitutions would
still be in the common law republic form.
||"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every
kingdom divided against itself, is brought to desolation: and
every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand."
Matt. 12:25 Holy Bible K.J.V. (1611).
APPLICATION OF THE SOVIET PRINCIPLE
Thirdly, to prove facts one and two above, it will be necessary
to examine the amending of the state constitutions since there
are certain articles which, if amended, effect other articles of
the same. In every state admitted to the Union prior to the war
between the states, the citizenship was restricted and exclusive
to the white race. After the war, these were amended under the
compulsion of martial law to comply with the 14th. The state
officials were faced with the choice of enforcing the 14th over
the organic law of their respective states and committing treason
thereby or continuing to obey their state constitutions and face
diminishment of representation in Congress. They could not lawfully act in contravention of their state constitutions and adopt
the 14th which was only a power contemplatable within the District of Columbia and its enclaves, if at all.
Prior to the 14th and 15th Amendments, all the state constitutions permitted only white male citizens to vote. After their
adoption, the state constitutions were changed to permit every
"citizen" of the "United States" who is a "resident" to vote. Of
course, when it is known that the term "United States" as used in
the 14th means the District of Columbia, the complete thrust and
intent with respect to the expansion of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 (U.S. Const.) becomes obvious.
This proves how the state constitutions, through amendment, have
removed the one race (nation) body politic (government) designation. It also proves my statement that we are becoming more like
the U.S.S.R. in our form of government and our order of law.
||"Uniform Union citizenship is established for citizens of the USSR.
||"Every citizen of a Union Republic is a citizen of the USSR." U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. II, Art. 21, (1936).
||"Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or conversely, the establishment of any direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as
well as any advocacy or racial or national exclusiveness or
hatred and contempt, is punishable by law." U.S.S.R. Const. Ch.
X, art. 123, cl. 1 (1936).
||"Equality of rights of citizens of the USSR, irrespective of
their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, government, cultural, political and other activity, is an indefeasible
law." U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. X, art. 123, cl. 2 (1936).
Examine the principles of "Social Structure" for a socialist republic.
||"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist
state of workers and peasants." U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. I, art. 1
||"Work in the USSR is a duty and a matter of honor for every
able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'
||"The principle applied in the USSR is that of socialism:
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.'" U.S.S.R. Const., Ch. I, Art. 12, (1936).
Is the purpose of the American Constitution socialism?
At one time the supreme Court of the united States held the view
that "New Deal", socialist, legislation very similar to the
Social Security Act was unconstitutional. But, the Court withdrew from this opinion in later years after "We the People" had
shown our acceptance of it by our individual signatures (in
multiple millions) upon the individual contracts for social
insurance. Of course, the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. embraces
universal social insurance.
||"Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old
age and also in case of sickness and disability." U.S.S.R.
Const. Ch. X, art. 120, cl. 1 (1936).
||"This Right is ensured by the extensive development of
social insurance of factory and office workers at state expense,
free medical service for the working people, and the provision of
a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working
people." U.S.S.R. Const. Ch. X, art. 120, cl. 2 (1936).
Social Security Act of the United States:
||"The Board shall perform the duties imposed upon it by this
Act and shall also have the duty of studying and making recommendations as to the most effective methods of providing economic
security through social insurance, and as to legislation and
matters of administrative policy concerning old-age pensions,
unemployment compensation, accident compensation, and related
subjects. Title VII, Sec. 702, Social Security Act, August 14,
1935, Ch. 531, 49 Stat. 636.
Clearly "social insurance" is socialism. Does the supreme Court
now believe that socialism is constitutional? That communism is
constitutional in America? Or is it that the supreme Court has
no choice? Just what conditions could force the supreme Court
to follow the principles set out in the constitution of the
Only one answer is possible. "We the People" have allowed our
state and national constitutions to be amended to bring them
within the guidelines of a socialist republic. Considering the
attitude of socialism (communism) toward Christianity and the
scriptures generally, we have abandoned the Word of our Father
and the common law that put His Word into practice in society. We
have altered not only our FORM of government (or at least permitted it to be done for us) but also have abandoned His law and
with it our hereditary national faith. They are all inseparable.
You can't have one without the others! What did the Christ teach
us on this point? Do you remember the Lord's prayer?
||"Thy Kingdom (government) come, thy will be done, on earth
as it is in Heaven."
THE COUNTERFEIT RELIGION
To substantiate all of the foregoing, I only have to prove one
more fact, that the states individually and collectively have
abandoned the common law principle of government that represented
and embodied the triune character of God. That is to say, that
"We the People" have reduced, by the amending process, our state
and national governments to one branch of power and have abandoned the three co-equal branch Christian principle of government.
The alteration had to begin with the state constitutions, since
the United States, under Article IV, Section 4 was bound to
support and guarantee every state a republican form of government; which means that Congress would have to support those state
constitutions that provided for a common law republic form of
The first alteration had to be to remove the constitutional
distinction as to which race would govern. This, in turn, would
open the door for the socialists to introduce international
principles of toleration for all races, colors and creeds into
our domestic scene, and of course into our domestic constitutions. Thus, through the 14th and 15th Amendments, the socialists obtained the power of the vote (ballot box) to accomplish
their ultimate ends.
To accommodate all creeds (which includes all non-Christian,
anti-Christ religions) they had to change the Christian doctrine
of the nation by convincing the governing people that the Christians that founded our Christian republics erred in their understanding of our Father's laws set out in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.
Note how Judge Rives (Ex parte Reynolds et al, Fed. Case No.
11,720) in his decision tries to justify the fourteenth statutory
article to the triune government of a State: his problem is that,
under the triune form of government, he knows the county and
city/town officials are not subject to obey the 14th statutory
The first fallacy that was presented as Christian doctrine was
that the coming of the Christ put away the law of the Old Testament. This fallacy, like virtually all of the "judeo-Christian"
viewpoint, was gleaned from the writings of Paul. It was presented in various and increasing degrees as justification for disregarding the Old Testament. This perversion of scriptural doctrine
now unabashedly denies that the statutes, commandments and judgments of the Father ever had any relevance or validity with
regard to life on earth and totally embraces the egalitarian
universalist propaganda of the Talmud and its child, international communism.
Of course, it includes a complete disregard for the divine law of
"kind after kind" and the injunction against placing strangers in
positions of authority over us. The tolerance for government
officers outside the original governing race (nation) and for
miscegenation (race mixing) is now sanctioned by government
In a truly Christian republic, and Christian nation, the above is
a bunch of hog-wash. The words of the Christ refute these delusions:
||"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but fulfill.
||"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one title, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled." Matt. 5:17-18, Holy Bible, K.J.V. (1611 ed.).
Has the earth passed? I'm still standing on it. How about you?
How do Christians figure the Old Testament is no longer valid?
Are the Ten Commandments put away as well?
Consider what an affront and crime it is against our God to place
in our government one who openly states that he is not a believer
in Jesus the Christ or one who openly denies that Christ was God
come in the flesh! Does it make any sense to place such as these
in our legislative bodies and upon the benches in our judicial
offices? Do you really believe that you can argue law and doctrine predicated upon Christian principle before these people and
receive a Christian judgment? Not in a pigs eye you can't! Christian law does not allow non-Christians to hold office or sit in
judgment over Christians. How can a non-Christian wield authority
in a Christian government? It's absurd! It can't be done!
THE COUNTERFEIT GOVERNMENT
How then did it come about? It is the 14th Amendment that allows
those who are anti-christ to hold office and sit in judgment in
our land. Obviously, then, the 14th Amendment is un-Christian.
Evil cannot proceed from good; good cannot come of that which is
evil. Decide for yourself.
Once the breach in common law was accomplished (one race sovereignty) the door was opened to destroy the Christian doctrine
represented by three co-equal branches of government, at both the
state and national levels.
First, the national legislators proposed the thirteenth amendment. The Congressional purpose as embodied in the thirteenth
amendment was not to free the slaves, although this was the cloak
with which they covered their real motives as you have already
seen. So what was Congress' motive if it wasn't to abolish
POWER! POWER! POWER! Congress wanted to destroy all the Christian
common law principles of three co-equal branches of government to
bring the Executive and Judicial branches under their control and
thereby consolidating all governmental power in one branch. But
Congress had to be careful not to awaken the Christians who
understood the triune God doctrine represented by three co-equal
branches of government, and not to awaken them to the fact that a
socialist Congress was destroying that Christian doctrine.
Sure, we still have three branches of government. But, are they
co-equal? The answer is an emphatic, NO! In reviewing the
Constitution for the united States of America we find only one
article that gives Congress power independent of the Executive
and Judicial Branches.
||".... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as
may, by Cession of particular states, and the Acceptance of
Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the state in which Same shall be,
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings; - And " Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, Const.
for the united States of America.
It is clearly stated, "To exercise exclusive legislation..."
Here the door was opened for Congress to usurp all power and
absorb it into the legislative branch. The scheme was to bring,
via subterfuge and deceit, the people, the several states, and
the Executive and Judicial Branches of the national government
within the power delineated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,
Congress' first try was to bring Article IV within the purview of
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Congress wanted to control the
territories under the exclusive legislative power. Congress
claimed that Article IV and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, were
not separate, but combined, to give Congress exclusive legislative power in the territories. The supreme Court of the united
States disagreed. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856),
the supreme Court ruled only whites were citizens, and more
significantly, that Article IV was a separate power not to be
exercised under the exclusive legislation clause. (See Downs v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 , 1901). Slavery was not the issue in Dred
Scott that caused the civil war, instead, the restriction of
Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and the
attending destruction of the socialist dream (to consolidate all
power in one branch of government) were the causes.
Under Lincoln, the District of Columbia declared war on the
southern states. There was no war between the states, only a war
between the District of Columbia and the southern states. Lincoln merely used his powers to draw troops through the northern
Governors, who should have refused to send their militias to the
District of Columbia. In fact, some Governors did refuse. Even
modern history books claim that the first shot wasn't fired on a
northern state, instead they claim that the first shot fired was
against D.C. soil, a fort of the United States, an area subject
to Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Lincoln clouded the real issue by telling the people of the northern
states that slavery was the issue. Even today Dred Scott still
holds that Congress cannot combine the powers of Article IV with
the powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Dred Scott
spoiled the socialist scheme to convert the states back into
territories under Article IV. What the supreme Court said was
that under Article IV the territories had to be governed according to the principles of the common law. The white citizens of
the territories could not be deprived of the Article III right to
Clearly, the Dred Scott decision mandated that the Christian
principles of the common law were to be embodied in the organic
laws of the territories. The people, and those who framed the
state constitutions for territories like Oregon, kept these
principles in the organic law for their respective states when
they obtained statehood.
The socialists needed a new scheme. They needed a territorial
jurisdiction which would not fall within the boundaries of Article IV of the Constitution for the united States of America, but
one that, instead, would fall within Article I, Section 8, Clause
17. The socialists knew they had to expand Congress' exclusive
legislative power in order to realize their plan to destroy the
Christian foundation of three co-equal branches of government.
They put the thirteenth amendment in place. Their only interest
was in the second section.
||"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 13th Am., sec. 2 (1865).
Notice the wording "by appropriate legislation". Section two of
the thirteenth amendment gave the socialist Congress the pretext
of power they needed for expansion of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17. Notice that section two only expands the power of
Congress, not any other branch of the national government.
Obviously, since only Congress' power was expanded, the amendment
could only be effective where Congress had exclusive power in the
first place; that is, within the District of Columbia and its
enclaves. The Amendment was only effective in the expansion of
Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which was
a power exclusive to Congress and outside the reach of the other
Now that they had section two of the thirteenth amendment in
place (remember it applies only to D.C. and its enclaves), they
needed more residents under their power. The Congress next
proposed, and the state legislatures ratified, the fourteenth
amendment (1868), the purpose of which was to create new citizens
for the District of Columbia. The same scenario was then followed with the fifteenth amendment (1870) to give the newly
created citizen the vote. All three amendments have the same
power clause, the effect of which is to expand Congress' power
under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, step by step with the same
"appropriate legislation" clause. It should be noted that the
first principal acts of Congress, under the power clauses of the
thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, were civil rights acts
which authorized the use of military force to enforce the socialist Congress will. You will notice that whenever their is an
uprising of civil disobedience that relates to one of these
amendments, like the case when Wallace refused to follow the
orders of the supreme Court related to entrance of a black student into a state college, you see the national guard on the
scene. Apparently martial law has never been lifted and this
military force clause is still in effect.
Next, the federal courts, under acts of Congress, began to naturalize citizens, a function previously belonging to the state
courts under prior naturalization law.
All of this still didn't give Congress power over the white
citizenry in America. Congress bided their time and took the
next step in the scheme by bringing Senators under Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17, via the 17th Amendment. This also was
ratified by the state legislatures (May, 1913). In the mean time
Congress (guided and directed by the jews) created a monetary
mechanism to fuel the new machine with revenue via the sixteenth
amendment (Feb., 1913).
Having established a concurrent jurisdiction with the several
states over prohibition (18th am. 1919), Congress next absorbed
the women of America into the jurisdiction of Article I, Section
8, Clause 17, with the 19th amendment (1920).
Finally, the white males, those who where not only of the sovereignty, but, who where the only lawful body politic, had to be
brought within the power. Here the socialists had a problem,
some of the state constitutions still stood in the way. They had
to get all the several states to remove constitutional clauses
that allowed only free white males to vote and hold office in
state government. To do this they had to fully destroy the
sovereignty of the several states in order to bring them within
the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 power. Congress' attack was
in earnest; they understood that this step of the plan was absolutely necessary to bring the entire nation under Congress'
||"Fifth. The Constitution has undoubtedly conferred on
Congress the right to create such municipal organizations as it
may deem best for all the territories of the United States whether they have been incorporated or not, to give to the inhabitants
as respects the local governments such degree of representation
as may be conducive to the public well-being, to deprive territory of representative government if it considered just to do so,
and to change such local governments at discretion." Downs v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 289 (1901).
Municipal organizations were the tools chosen by the socialists, like:
||1. The Federal Reserve; and,
2. The Social Security Administration with attendant regulatory
bodies such as H.E.W., with additional supportive acts like the
Uniform Commercial Code.
Agency (Municipal organization) after agency, all created by
Congress, all created under the expanded authority of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17, were added. With the personal income tax
already in place upon created citizens, subjects and persons,
these agencies absorbed more and more of the populace to fuel the
socialist machine. That's right, the income tax is imposed by a
municipal law of the District of Columbia which became applicable
outside its geographical area when Congress defrauded the white
citizens of the several states into joining Social Security.
Once state sovereignty was broken, municipal law became the
supreme law of the land. A new territorial jurisdiction, different from that originally established by the constitution, including national areas and regions, was created and erected. When you
signed up for the Number you became a piece of walking talking
D.C. property and that jurisdiction travels with you wherever you
might go throughout the world. When you took the Number you
became one of those "persons born or naturalized in the United
States (District of Columbia), and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof". The Number makes you one of the "citizens of the United
States (District of Columbia)" no matter where you might "reside"
even if its in a state. These circumstances are identical to
those embodied within the organic law of the Soviet Union.
||"The Soviet of Nationalities is elected by the citizens of
the USSR voting by Union Republics, Autonomous Republics, Autonomous Regions, and National Areas on the basis of twenty five
deputies form each Union Republic, eleven deputies from each
Autonomous Republic, five deputies from each Autonomous Region,
and one deputy from each National Area." U.S.S.R. Const., Ch.
III, Art. 35 (1936).
It is clear how D.C. is restructuring the nation into regions and
national areas, bringing all into the power of the legislative
branch! No reasonable citizen can look at the two maps above and
dispute their meaning. Does the national area of the zip-code
bring the post office under municipal law? Does using a mailing
permit (represented by permit (account) number) and a zip-code
allow the post office to open your mail? Does your state take
municipal script (Federal Reserve Notes) to finance so-called
state functions? Doesn't it seem clear that so-called state
government is placed under Congress' municipal control? Do you
now understand how Congress made you drive 55 m.p.h., put your
car through D.E.Q., and made you file federal tax forms, all of
which waive some of your most sacred vested rights?!
THE STATES CONQUERED BY D.C.
All that remains to be proven is that the state governmental
structure has been completely subjected to the power of Congress
under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. You can look at practically any state in the Union to prove this fact.
In the original American form, the National/Federal government
could not violate state sovereignty, nor could the several states
invade the National/Federal sovereignty. This held true even
when their jurisdictions appeared to somewhat overlap one another.
The common law principle of separation of jurisdiction continues
even within the state itself. The state's jurisdiction could not
invade the County and the County's jurisdiction could not invade
that of the cities and towns. Consistent with the national
structure, each of the three jurisdictions within the state (i.e.
state, county & cities) were replete with the same republican
form of government mandated by common law principles.
In contrast you can clearly see that the jurisdictional organization of a republic created under international law provides only
one power to govern and that supreme legislative will is dominant
and unrestrained. Under that system the states, cities and towns
are all subject to the supreme legislative will within the central government. Under that system, there is no authority within
the government that may question or challenge the validity of a
legislative act. That is exactly the position which the Congress
of the United States aspires to today and apparently thinks it
Question: Has the amending of the Constitutions of the respective
and several states broken down the Christian common law structure
originally intended and fundamentally embodied in the design of
those several Republics?
The only way to determine if this condition exists is to examine
the original constitutions for the respective states (especially
those admitted prior to 1865) and make comparisons against the
amendments that have been made thereto. In each and every instance you will find that it was the free white electors of the
territory who drew up and ratified the proposed state constitution which was to be submitted to Congress for approval and
subsequent admission. These constitutions were, without exception, styled as an act of "We the People" and the authoritative
expression of THEIR will which was supreme, not that of the
respective territorial legislatures. It was the People who formed
these states and gave them life and no legislative will or authority was incumbent therein. Thus, it is readily evident that
it is "We the (free white) People" ourselves who ARE the respective states.
All of the states admitted to the Union prior to 1865 submitted
constitutions to Congress which were predicated upon the foundation of a "free white" sovereign body. In each and every instance
the Congress of the United States of America approved those
constitutions as being in compliance with the organic law of the
Union. This approval was confirmation of the fact that these
constitutions were in accordance with the common law principles
embodied in the constitution for the united States of America,
the organic law for the nation.
The foregoing cumulative testimony as to the original basis of
the constitution is attested to by multitudes of authorities in
the old books. From the lowest justice of the peace to the highest judicial officers in the land, they all ring as one voice
declaring the eternal foundations of the American Republic to be
the triune citadel of one race, one faith and one law.
The Constitution for the united States of America was, like the
constitutions for the respective states, ordained and established
by conventions of the people of the several states that formed
the Union. Instead of being accepted by legislative authority,
both constitutions were accepted by conventions of the people.
(See Article VII, Constitution for the united States of America).
The Preambles to these respective constitutions specifically
declare that it is "We the People" who have ordained and established the constitutions for the governments of the several
states and of the Union. In these several constitutions they
speak of and refer to the organization of the states and of the
Union as a Social Compact. What do the words "social compact"
mean? A basic understanding of the "social compact" formed is
clearly established and related by the text and content of the
citizenship provisions in these several constitutions; for without exception they specifically declare that only those of the
white race may be naturalized as Citizens of the states and
become electors thereof.
PERPETUAL LAW, FAITH AND UNION
When one considers that we have a perpetual constitution and a
perpetual Union, then it is, by deduction, rather apparent that
the constitutions upon which these states entered the Union are
also perpetual! And so is the citizenship declared therein!
Obviously, the "social compact" spoken of in both, the national
and the several state constitutions, is a "compact" between
members of the white race only for their own "social" well
Were the people of the several states who included such exclusionary clauses in their constitutions merely a bunch of racists,
or were they people who understood the principles behind the two
forms of Republic previously mentioned, and the principles of the
Holy Bible that are fundamental to a common law Republic?
||"And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor
shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to
draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that
engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD." Jeremiah
The citizenship provisions of the several state constitutions
were reflected and echoed in the first naturalization law of
||"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any
alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within
the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for
the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, ..." An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
March 26, 1790, Ch. 3, Sec. 1, 1 Stat. 103.
The white people of the several states understood that to admit
all races to citizenship in their states would be to establish a
republic under international law, not the common law.
Compare the citizenship and elector provisions of these original
state constitutions with the following provision of the USSR
||"Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the
USSR who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race
or nationality, sex, religion, education, domicile, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote
in the election of deputies, with the exception of insane persons
and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose
sentences include deprivation of electoral rights." Chapter XI,
Article 135, U.S.S.R. Constitution.
The difference between the two types of republics are clearly
evident. However, the citizenship and elector provisions of the
several states no longer read as they once did; they now emulate
and copy the soviet constitution. They provide, without exception, for a universal citizenship and suffrage for every "citizen
of the United States" regardless of race, color or creed.
CONGRESSIONAL FRAUD AND TREASON
Did anyone tell the people of the states that by amending their
constitutions they were altering the basic order of law for their
respective states from Christian common law principles to anti-Christ international law principles, and actually restructuring
their states (republics)? Did anyone bother to tell them that
they were setting aside the common law structure and restrictions
which protected the rights of the people from government encroachment in favor of an international law and governmental
structure which offered no such protections?
It must be reiterated; we are being told that the U.S.S.R. is
becoming more like the United States, but, the truth of the
matter seems to be that the United States is becoming more like
the U.S.S.R. As repulsive as this statement might seem we owe it
to ourselves to take a closer look at what is happening to us in
this country. Look around you! Can you deny what your eyes see?
Wouldn't the altering of the state constitutions and their citizenship and elector provisions change the meaning of the "social
compact" spoken of therein? By amending those respective articles didn't we enter a new "social compact", one that was never
contemplated by the people of the states when they adopted their
If the original intent of the state constitutions has been altered then it is highly possible, and certainly likely, that
other provisions of those several constitutions were also automatically altered by implication, although, not actually (directly) amended.
How much more of the state constitutions has been altered from
the common law republic to the international law type of republic
by this kind of subterfuge? What about the respective state
provisions for census, apportionment of the state and federal
legislators, and election of the state officials? Just what law
is now being faithfully executed by the state officials and the
In all the state constitutions the Governor is commander of the
military forces of the state and these may be called out to
execute the laws and suppress rebellion as well as repel invasion. Just what law is it that is now going to be executed? The
answer is rather obvious I would say! According to the changes
we have just discussed, the Governor is required to faithfully
enforce those provisions of the state law which are equivalent to
the laws of the U.S.S.R.
He has the authority to do this by calling forth troops of the
supreme SOVIET (the District of Columbia if you will) or their
domestic equivalent! He no longer has any troops at his disposal
that are under state authority. The Governors of the several
states no longer command a state militia. They are totally dependent upon the militia of the District of Columbia (previously
known as the armed forces of the United States).
TREACHERY OF THE LAWYERS
The ramifications of these alterations to the state constitutions
reach into every facet of governmental structure and operation.
In all the original state constitutions, the judicial power of
the state was vested in a supreme court, circuit courts, and
county court, which were to be courts of record, having general
jurisdiction, to be defined, limited, and regulated by law, in
accordance with those respective constitutions. Justices of the
peace were also vested with limited judicial powers, and municipal courts were created to administer the regulations of incorporated towns and cities. These courts were characterized by the
(Note the difference between an incorporated town and a town incorporated: the former does not mean to the State.)
||(A) Supreme Court;
(B) Circuits Courts;
(C) County Courts;
||3. Having general jurisdiction:
(C) regulated by law in accordance with this constitution;
||4. Justice of the Peace:
||(A) also vested with judicial power;
(B) also limited;
||5. Municipal courts:
||(A) created to administer regulations;
(B) for incorporated cities and towns;
The state constitutions as now amended still provide that the
judicial power of the state shall be vested in one supreme court
and in such other courts as were from time to time created by
law. The judges of the supreme and other courts are still
elected by the "legal voters" of the state or of their respective
districts for a term of years, and still receive such compensation as is provided by law.
Almost always there is also a provision which states that such
compensation can not be diminished during the term for which
those judges are elected. However, there is something missing!
The state constitutions, as now amended for the most part, don't
and, don't mention:
||1. Courts having general jurisdiction:
||(A) to be defined;
(B) limited; or,
(C) regulated by law in accordance with this constitution;
|| 2. Justice of the Peace Courts; or,
What does the deletion of this language mean?
In simple terms, such omissions leave the whole jurisdiction that
previously belonged to the inferior courts to the supreme Court
and to the whim of the legislature of the state to determine
whether the supreme Court will be allowed to exercise that jurisdiction. In other words, the judicial branch of state government
is now completely subject to the will of the legislature thereof
and has been subverted from its intended purpose and function. It
can no longer act as a check and balance against legislative
The founders of the state constitutions knew and understood that
a Republic, founded to enforce the principles of the common law,
required three co-equal branches of government. Over and over
again they stated this principle simply and clearly within the
several constitutions that the people of the respective states
adopted. So important was this proposition to the framers of the
various state constitutions, that they provided entire articles
to assert it.
The amendments used to subvert the judicial power in the respective state constitutions completed the conversion of the state
republics from the common law form to the international socialist
form in direct violation of the intentions of the framers set out
in original judicial articles adopted when these states were
admitted into the Union.
THE STATES AS TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF REPUBLIC
Original Constitution - Common Law:
||Three co-equal branches of government;
||Separation of power, legislative, judicial, executive;
||In all the states, the judicial branch was bound by the original
state constitution rather than the legislative branch. This
assured the judicial branch power and constitutional capacity of
declaring acts of the legislative branch unconstitutional, void
and of no effect.
Amended Constitution - International Law:
||One branch (the legislative) all powerful which in effect makes
the government of Oregon a one branch government;
||With the other two branches subservient to the legislature, no
separation of powers;
||Under the amended constitution the administration of government
conforms to that of a socialist international law republic; the
judicial branch, just like in the U.S.S.R. Constitution, has no
real power to declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional.
If you have ever wondered why it is never reported that a circuit
or district court of one of the states has declared an act of the
state legislature unconstitutional, you now know the reason why.
Those courts in particular have no such power under the one
branch (soviet style) system.
If this is true then the evidence can be found in the restructuring of the state governments. Since it is the constitution that
determines the structure of the state government in the first
place, then the evidence of restructuring will appear in amendments to that basic structural law.
If your state is now, by amending of the state constitution, a
socialist republic, then the actual structure of government in
your state will be found in compliance with that new form and all
that it requires.
To make your state a socialist republic certain structural elements must have been altered.
The separation of jurisdictions between the government of state,
counties, cities & towns must be consolidated under one authority
The judicial power must be placed under the control of the legislative branch, which has clearly been done in virtually all the
By obtaining control of the judicial power the legislative branch
also gains control of the executive branch. When the judicial
branch enforces the acts of the legislative branch the executive
branch is required to enforce the enactments of the legislature
as well. If members of the executive branch fail to enforce the
legislative enactments sanctioned by the judicial branch they
would be subject to charges of misconduct and malfeasance which
the judicial branch would try, and which would undoubtedly result
in conviction of the offending member of the executive.
This leaves the legislative branch virtually unopposed when it
enacts legislation to destroy the jurisdictions of the counties,
cities & towns or even the individual unalienable and inalienable
rights of the people themselves.
So, in this fashion and by these means, the state republics are
being restructured to comply with the requirements and characteristics of international law.
Have the county courts and the circuit courts in your state been
abolished and state courts established in their place? Has your
county clerk's office been abolished and replaced by a state
office called by the same name? Has your county sheriff been
neutralized by having his authority controlled by the state
instead of the county? Is your county sheriff now found solely
under the executive branch functions instead of the judicial or
has all mention of the county sheriff simply been deleted from
your present state constitution?
THE LAWYERS ARE THE ENEMIES OF LIBERTY
All of this is being done in many states under the alleged mandate of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The states
cannot establish legislative courts within the counties without
the support of some external authority. They do not possess the
intrinsic power of and by themselves. They must therefore claim a
mandate in the 14th to justify their subversive acts. When confronted with their acts they will obviously respond that it was
necessary in order to assure all those citizens of D.C. (re:
Social Security participants) the measure of "due process" to
which they are entitled. Upon that pretext the lawyers are overthrowing our form of government.
In most of the original state constitutions the county sheriff
was provided for under both the judicial and the executive functions of the state government. Why did the Founding Fathers of
the several states find it necessary to place such emphasis upon
the office of sheriff?
ANSWER: Because the county sheriff under the state's common law
republic is the highest law enforcement official. He had both
executive and judicial functions for the state. The office of
sheriff served process for both the executive branch of the state
government (including the administrative) and the judicial branch
whose authority was derived from, and executed at, the county
level. The office of sheriff could not serve this dual function
without specific authorization in the constitution. Under most of
the original state constitutions there could be no state troopers
or executive level (legislatively controlled) law enforcement.
The county sheriff's duties were to enforce the law of the county
(power of the county). The county was a separate political unit
which had rights of self determination which superseded enactments of the legislative assembly.
For instance, say the legislators of a state passed a personal
income tax bill, and the executive branch began to enforce the
enactment against you because you refused to obey the legislative
enactment. The executive branch (the Attorney General's office
and Department of Justice) would issue charges (a complaint)
against you and the county sheriff, being subject to the executive under provisions of the state constitution, would serve the
process on you. You, in turn, would file counter charges in a
court which had full judicial power to hear allegations regarding
the unconstitutionality of the legislative enactment. Your allegations would attack the constitutional validity intended to be
enforced by the complaint, and asserting that the Legislative
Assembly had violated the state constitution.
||"No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be
seized." Article 1, Section 9, Oregon Constitution (1859).
The above provisions are found in every state constitution as
well as the federal one and, if enforceable, would nullify all
attempts at assessing and collecting a personal income tax. The
personal income tax act is unconstitutional because by requiring
you to file the tax return form it invades your vested and protected right to be secure in your person, houses, papers & affects. By requiring the filing of such tax forms the legislative
assemblies are obviously violating the provisions quoted above.
Rights are absolute, governmental powers are conditional. Where
the exercise of conditional governmental powers violate absolute
rights, the enactment is unconstitutional, null and void. What
condition must governmental power meet to be legitimately exercised? The exercise of power must uphold absolute rights, and
never can that power be used for a contrary purpose.
In a common law republic, while the Legislative Assembly has the
power to pass tax legislation, they are precluded from taxing a
vested unalienable or inalienable right nor can they impose
taxation in such a way as to supersede other restrictions laid on
them by the Bill of Rights in the respective state constitutions.
The courts holding the judicial power, in a common law form of
republic, have the power to protect the citizen from an unconstitutional enactment such as the income tax statute, by refusing to
regard it as law.
Those courts listed must act in accordance with the constitution
that created them and gave them life. In all the states admitted
prior to 1865, when the state constitution was adopted it included all the protections afforded by its Bill of Rights (Article
I); and the circuit, and county courts had common law jurisdiction and the necessary judicial power to enforce the common law
maxims embodied in that Bill of Rights.
Removing the common law powers from those courts, by amending the
state constitutions, left the courts without the necessary power
to enforce the provisions in the respective State Bill of Rights;
provisions which were originally adopted by the people for protection from the very government they where creating.
The key words that were necessary to give the courts the common
law jurisdiction, i.e., the power to protect us from government
usurpations, have been removed from all the constitutions of the
several states, or nearly so.
Maybe this explains why the respective states tout themselves as
the home of the free, as long as you get a license (i.e. permission to be free)!
THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
Hasn't the amending of your state constitution reduced the sheriff to an administrative official of the state, subject only to
the executive of the state, which in turn is subject only to the
legislative branch? Although it may not appear so on the surface, as you have seen, the separation of powers for all intents
and purposes is completely broken down; and the respective state
republics are now within the definitive boundaries of socialist
international law. Today the governments of the several states
have only one effective branch, the legislative branch. All
power in the state governments now effectively rests in that one
branch just the same as it does in the U.S.S.R. under its socialist constitution.
By the amending of the state constitutions, the states, in both
fact and law, have become socialist republics, and the people
are left powerless to bring the legislative power over them into
check under their current constitutions.
Our national government is called by the name United States of
America, but it would be much more factual if it where called the
United Socialist States of America.
Americans have been informed throughout their lives that our
national government is a government of the people, by the people,
and for the people. When the people of the several states of the
Union set aside the Christian common law for anti-Christ socialism and accordingly altered their several republics to conform,
the United States government followed the people and reorganized
To comply with the people's alleged wishes, Congress expanded
their own exclusive legislative power, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution for the united States of
America. With the consent of the state legislatures, the judicial
and executive branches of the national government were also
brought under control of the legislative power, as were the
several state legislatures themselves. This was accomplished by
the state legislatures, not the people of the states mind you,
through their alleged ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th,
17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The structure developed by these amendments conforms to the
structure of a socialist republic. Not one of these amendments
was passed by conventions of the people of the several states in
the Union, like the original Constitution for the united States
of America was in 1787.
The citizens of the several states were misled as to the real
reason for altering their own state constitutions. The citizens
of the several states were told, by their state legislators,
among others, that the only reason for ratification of the fourteenth amendment was to end racial discrimination in America,
which is utterly untrue.
The thirteenth and later amendments are merely the vehicle used
to dupe the people into taking a ride in a vehicle that eventually required them to leave the road of the common law by taking
the off ramp leading to international law under the doctrine of
socialism. The real problem is that nobody put up any signs to
tell them where they were going.
Neither the state or U.S. officials told the truth about the
impact of adding to the citizenry, that adding non-whites to the
citizenry would alter the nature of the republics established in
the several states. In fact, state and national officials have
branded anyone who would bring the truth of the matter up a
"racist" to cover up their previous deceptions with yet another
THE IMPOSITION OF SLAVERY
The officials of the several states and the United States are
drunk with power and they like their roles in this altered form
of government. Socialism is the governing principle being put in
practice by the governments of the several states as well as the
The states listed below are states which no longer have their
state boundaries recorded in their respective constitutions:
Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Once this process is complete there won't be any states left;
only ten socialist regions governed directly from D.C. You must
ask yourself why your state officials have not raised a loud hue
and cry warning our people of what was going on and protesting
these usurpations? Why is it that they have not told us that our
government was being restructured? Obviously, it is because they
are benefiting from it. They are, along with the minions in D.C.,
gaining power and absolute authority over us. The socialist
system is enriching them in untold ways. They are betraying us
for their love of mammon. They are part and parcel of the socialist/communist plan.
Why do you think they want to make D.C. a state? Because when
they do, D.C. will own (control) all the land in the united
States. Remember, Moscow owns all the land in Russia! Not just 10
THE WAY BACK
Put a stop to socialism! The citizens of Oregon, as well as the
citizens of the other states of the Union, still have the authority to alter or abolish their amended constitutions and put the
originals back in force. Our forefathers provided for it:
"We declare that all men, when they form a social compact,
are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and
all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at
all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in
such manner as they may think proper.-" Article I, Bill of
Rights, Oregon Const. (1859).
These words, or similar, are found in most of the original, and
even many of the current, state constitutions. The citizens have
the right by convention to re-establish the republics that have
been taken from us by stealth and deception. The citizens have
the absolute right to put the original state constitutions and
the republics they formed back into full force and effect. The
citizens have the right to put the common law principles of our
Father's laws back at the head of government.
Everybody has their own opinions about what is wrong with government, but nobody, especially the politicians, seem to know what
to do about it. This will be the last chance we will have to
avoid a total break-down of the Christian form of government that
the founders of the several states established!
The conspirators who seek a socialist republic have even gone so
far as to remove the set boundary lines from the state constitutions. Very few of the current state constitutions still retain
the descriptions of the state boundaries contained in the originals.
In some states the legislature now has the authority to completely abolish the state boundaries by statute, by interstate compact, or with the consent of Congress. This is exactly what the
socialists would eventually like to do since state boundaries
only have meaning in the common law form of republic and have no
real meaning in an international socialist form of republic. Or,
maybe they already have done it through the Social Security Act.
||"The Soviet of Nationalities is elected by the citizens of
the USSR voting by Union Republics, Autonomous Republics, Autonomous Regions, and National Areas on the basis of twenty five
deputies from each Union Republic, eleven deputies from each
Autonomous Republic, five deputies from each Autonomous Region,
and one deputy from each National Area." Ch. III, Article 35,
No longer can the Christian citizens in the states trust their
elected officials. They must act in their own interest and
restore their constitutions.
The white People of the respective states have the vested right
to alter or abolish the present constitutions and to replace them
with the necessary safeguards to further our Christian republics. By calling for a state convention of the "People", which
does not require consent from the legislature, or any other
branch of government for that matter, this can be accomplished.
The time has come to answer this question: Do you believe in God
or Government? Your fate, and the fate of your children, hangs in
the balance. Decide wisely!!! If The Christ be with us, now is
the time to act.
Edward J. Arlt
Robert W. Wangrud
(Ragnar, Slayer of Dragons)
Reprints of this article and other articles of Behold! Newsletter are available from Jerry.