EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME XXIV

Government & Tyranny

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume XXIV--Government & Tyranny

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume XXIV--Government & Tyranny

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

Part UUU--Christian Government

361 Sun Worship Government Reality 6

362 Sun Worship Government Corruption 19

363 The 2000 US Sun Worship Elections 32

364 YHWH’s Sovereignty in Government 45

365 Reacting to Sun Worship Government 51

366 Supporting the Evil? 61

367 Sun Worship Governments’ Failures 69

368 Requirements for Public Office 80

Part VVV--Government Oppression

369 The Basis of Tyranny 84

370 Christian Government Oppression 100

371 The Branch Davidians I 109

372 The Branch Davidians II 115

373 More Classic Cases of Oppression 128

374 Still More Government Oppression 135

375 Conspiracy? 148

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume twenty-four of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

Chapter 361--Sun Worship Government Reality

The Big Lie

The June 2000 “Internet Vortex” had a UPI article on “Court Rejects Ohio’s ‘God’ Motto” (p. 5) which revealed a most important reality of modern attitudes toward human governments. This article quoted US Senator George Voinovich from Ohio who said that some years earlier, on a trip to India, he saw a sign which read-- “Government Work is God’s Work.”

Admittedly, many people in government and indeed many of the governed people actually believe this nonsense. This assertion is a bald faced lie, as will be conclusively proven in this and succeeding chapters. Human government work is not the work of The ELOHIM and certainly not in the generic sense (although some government functions individually can serve The MOST HIGH).

The Scriptures offer a better assessment. Proverbs 29:2 says that when the righteous are in authority or rule, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, people mourn. So it’s not a question of government. It is a question of righteousness.

The Home

To address the matter of government, it is well to look initially at the home and family because the whole foundation of government starts in the home and immediate family. As the Scriptures clearly establish, the home is to be governed by the av (Hebrew for father) in an authoritarian and loving manner--from the top down.

The wife and mother is the principle assistant and helper (the queen) to the av in the exercise of his responsibility over the family. The av is both king and priest of the home. Hence, he (with the help of his assistant) must exercise authority over both secular and religious affairs.

Despite this authority that the av possesses, he should in all cases exercise it in love and concern for the well being of the overall family. Where possible and on appropriate occasions, the av should consider input from his wife, in particular, and other family members, in general, so that his authority doesn’t appear to be arbitrary and inconsiderate of the needs of other members of the family.

In terms of the av’s specific duties and responsibilities, in his office of king and priest, the Word has an abundant and extraordinary set of instructions for the av and his helper in terms of their duties to each other and the family at large--all of which involve true Scriptural love.

In a sense, the “immediate” safety, deliverance and salvation of members of the family rest essentially upon the av and his assistant and how well they do their jobs. There is also much evidence which suggests that some aspects of the wife’s personal future safety may even depend in part on her husband, as well as on her own merits.

For example, previous chapters in this work have mentioned an election of 144,000 Israelite males (age 30 or over) here in the age end, chosen by lot from the foundations of the world.

Probably, out of this 144,000, there will be another selection of a “very elect” class of possibly 7,000 males which will be delivered from the great tribulation and be allowed to live in a place of safety to see the return of YHWH YESHUA in the flesh.

Now, in addition to these elected males (chosen by lot), there is every reason to believe that there will be a comparable number of mature Israelite females. While the lot “might” could have been used for their choices, it is also very possible that some of the women’s selections could depend to some extent upon their husbands (who are in the very election) and how well they support him in his duties of king and priest.

In other words, if a particular man is in that 7,000 very elect class and has a loyal, supporting wife, then it “might be” that her elect preference is predicated upon the fact of their marriage and her willingness to be a good wife and support and help him in being king and priest over the family. When the very elect move to safety, it seems plausible that such a good wife would accompany her husband.

Men Should Rule Well in the Here and Now

Since this election of 144,000 Israelites is destined to rule over the people of The ELOHIM (either in the here and now, in terms of a congregation of believers, or certainly in the future in the millennium), the Book is careful to point out that such men must learn to “rule” their own houses well (I Tim 3:4-5). As Shaul put it, if a man doesn’t know how to rule his own house, how can he rule over the assembly?

While the Word’s requirements for husbands and wives are plain enough, it is tragic that here in the age end, those roles are being either reversed or at least upset in some manner because of the surfacing of Christian humanism (which was discussed in former chapters).

The primary basis for this unnatural development is a prophecy by Yeshayahu about a coming time in Yisrael when children will be oppressors and women will rule over men, as noted before (Isa 3:12). One can see this repeatedly in modern society where permissiveness toward (rebellious) children and the rise of the feminist movement have completely upset family units.

An Example

The writer of this study knows a man who has been making some effort over a number of years to obey The MOST HIGH and is quite proud and convinced in his own mind that he is or will be an age end prophet. But in terms of his own family, he does not seem to rule them well at all.

One of his daughters (living on her av’s property and in a house/home owned by him) moved a shack up boy friend in with her and on his property. The av took no action to stop it at all. He let her do whatever she wanted to do in terms of promiscuous sex. He did nothing about it until one day she and the boy friend got into a spat (lover’s quarrel).

Her av sided with her and hit the boy friend (who was supposedly a brother in the same faith as his). But otherwise, her av made no effort to stop the harlotry. He justified the sock with--well, he had to do it to protect his daughter, never realizing that he should have never allowed this conduct to take place in the first place.

From the beginning, he should have put his foot down and ran the shack up boy friend (and her as well, if she objected) off of his property at once. Yet, this man thinks that he is or will be an age end prophet who is going to rule over YHWH’s people.

While such happenings are often acceptable in a humanistic sun worship culture (and evidently took place in the ancient Greek and Roman sun worship societies, as well as today), it is hard to justify them per the Word. As just observed, any person expecting to rule over The ELOHIM’s people will have to learn how to rule over his own family as a starter.

Too, the principles of good rule to be found in a home and family unit should extend to human government forms above the family. But for sure, one does not find good rulership in any human government organizations (built on Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or whatever). More often, they are guided by the carnality of leaders who are filled with pride, vanity, greed, envy, jealousy, selfishness and lust.

The United States

The United States was founded and established in the late 18th century with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and finally the Constitution (which has ruled since c1788).

From the beginning, the US was supposed to be a “republic” --specifically a representative republic whereby the people would essentially select other people to make the actual decisions on running the government, and on who the governmental leaders would be.

This condition is what one finds in the Constitution in its provision for an electoral college to choose a president (on the premise that the best brains of the land should be in the electoral college to “independently” elect the best president) and in the selection of senators by the state legislatures. There was no such thing as universal voting laws. It was left up to each state to establish her own rules.

But not content with a republic, powerful forces began to work to convert and change this republic into a “democracy.” Actually, some persons now argue that America has become or is becoming a “social democracy” where the government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens (Jul-Aug 1998 “Intelligence Newsletter,” p. 1). And this has happened over the years.

But even here, the United States is still not a true democracy. As the Oct-Dec 2002 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 3) noted, the pure form of democracy does not exist in the United States; because, in that condition, the voters would have to vote and decide all issues of government.

In the US, such a method is found only at the local (township) level in a few states (like New England, where the citizens of a local township meet in Town meetings and participate in and vote on the issues facing the local government. Thus, in some respects, the US is technically a blend of a democracy and a republic.

The control over establishing laws is in the hands of the representatives of the people (as in a republic); yet, the choice of those representatives is like a total democracy in granting the vote to every conceivable form and part of the population.

Political Parties and Choosing Representatives

Almost from the beginning, political parties developed and they began selecting fields of candidates for the electoral college. These political choices were “committed” to vote for the various parties’ choices for president.

Too, from the beginning, the big money interests would never allow much diversity in political parties (the more parties, the harder they are to control). So America has ended up with essentially two parties, whereby the electoral candidates are chosen by the parties. Consequently, the electors are never “independent” and free to choose the best man for president.

Then, in 1870, the 15th amendment to the Constitution was passed to grant the vote to all humans/humanoids of the US, without regard to race or Scriptural classification. In 1913, the 17th amendment was passed which provided for the direct election of the senators by the people. In 1920, the 19th amendment became law which granted the vote to women (and laid the groundwork for much of the depravity now in evidence).

In 1964, the 24th amendment surfaced which abolished all taxation, as associated with voting. Finally, in 1971, the 26th amendment arrived to extend the vote to 18 year old children (yes, 18 year olds are still children and are not mature adults--per the Book). At last, an effective democracy had taken over the US.

The Resulting Conflict or Paradox in the Constitution

The prevailing theory in the late 18th century was that the “people” in the different states could elect “free” and independent” people to form the electoral college which would have the best brains in the land to choose a president. This probably sounded good in the context of the then formed US republic. It certainly did away with the dangers of a democracy and helped to install a republic.

But the framers certainly never had any perception that the Constitution would be amended over the years to gradually and systematically change the republic into a democracy (which is precisely what has happened since 1788).

In a democracy (and especially one which allows giant corporations, owned by a few fat cats, to control the entire media, entertainment and educational institutions), the electoral college scheme simply doesn’t work out for the benefit of the people (as it did before the establishment of political parties and with the presence of the republic).

There are several important drawbacks to the electoral college provision in a prevailing democracy, as has evolved in the United States since 1788. First of all, it is a sham in that the electors are committed to political party candidates, as outlined above. Thus, why have electors if they are already committed? Why not just allow a popular vote for president without wasting time with electors?

Since all that is required to be elected president is a majority of the votes of the electors and since each state gives all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the vote (with two exceptions), it means that a person can be elected president without winning a majority of the popular vote (as happened twice with Bill Clinton).

Also, in 1888, Benjamin Harrison was elected president, but Grover Cleveland won the popular vote (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 257). This appears to be the situation with the 2000 elections with the ultimate selection of George W. Bush as US President.

While this winner takes all of the electoral vote in each state, it should be noted that state law can allow a situation where electoral votes can be prorated (as occurs in Maine and one more state in the West--evidently Nebraska).

With a true and fair apportionment of the electors along the lines of the state’s votes, the system could become more reasonable and allow a candidate to get elector votes, effectively based upon the balloting. For sure, a proration of each state’s votes to electors would just about insure that the person with the popular vote would get the electoral votes (which is a deficiency in the present arrangement).

In any case, if a person does not win the majority of electoral votes, then the issue goes to the House of Representatives where it will choose the president from the top three candidates. This has happened twice in history--in 1800 with Thomas Jefferson and in 1824 with John Quincy Adams.

The Big Problem

But these are not the big problem with the electoral college scheme. The real difficulty surfaces because the prevailing two party system (Republicans and Democrats) tie up the ballots in most of the states and allow no other candidates to be considered. Even when a third party candidate gets on a ballot, he must win a majority of the votes in the state involved to have any impact at all upon the election.

This means that if a third party candidate fails to win many or any electoral votes, his position is completely drowned out by the two major party candidates. Thus, all candidates and voters, beyond the prevailing two parties, have no voice unless they vote for and support the two parties. In other words, either support one of the two parties--or your position and vote is out, and of no effect nationally.

A Run-Off?

In many democratic elections, there should be a provision for a run-off when one candidate does not receive a simple majority. Possibly, a run off provision could be implemented in individual states, under the present electoral arrangement; if the Constitution would allow it, and if states would pass the required legislation. Certainly, if presidents were elected by popular vote, a run-off allowance would be practical.

A run-off provision would mean that all voters can vote for the candidates of their choice. If there is no majority winner, then a run-off occurs between the two top vote getters. With the electoral system, this might be possible by state. But with a Constitutional change, it could be done nationally. Thus, a person voting for a loser in the first cut, gets a chance to still have some impact on the final run-off election.

This is a good system because it allows a person to vote his conscience and not be concerned about throwing his vote away. If the voter’s candidate doesn’t win, and if there is a run-off, the voter can still get a shot at choosing between the two top vote getters. So, if a voter votes for a losing third party and there is a run-off between the primary two parties, the voter will have a later opportunity to choose between the two.

In the electoral system, the candidate with most of the votes in a given state gets all, 100%, of the electoral votes for that state presently (except as noted above).

Many voters are constantly told that they cannot support their party or candidate because they then lose any chance to have any input between the two major party candidates, who will usually end up with the electoral votes for a given state.

In other words, the voters are told to not waste their votes on the Reform, Libertarian, Green or other third party candidates. Instead, they are persuaded to go ahead and vote against their consciences by voting for the Republican or Democrat candidate. Hence, the voters only get one shot on the presidential question.

No Impacts on Elections

This sad condition means that no third party has much of a chance to have any impact upon an election. The voters either vote for one of the two party candidates (who are bought and controlled by a handful of super rich people, who control the media, entertainment and educational industries in corporate holding companies or foundations)--or they lose out completely.

If there was a run off election between the two top vote getters (in the usual Republican and Democrat parties), one would see these two major parties scrambling for some support from some of the third party positions. In other words, it would help insure that all ideas and positions have some impact on the election and that plutocrats do not buy the election by buying the candidates of the two major parties.

Obviously, the electoral college system simply means that it is incompatible with the very idea of a democracy. A democracy implies popular vote of the masses. With the electoral college and winner takes all by state, it is impossible to have a popular vote of the voters. Voters either vote for the approved and controlled candidates (controlled by the super rich plutocrats, calling the shots) or they lose out.

Truly, in a true democracy (as America has almost become since 1788), the president should be elected by pro-rated electoral votes by state or by popular vote. All viable candidates should be in the voting, and there should be a run-off between the two top vote getters if one of them does not get a majority of the votes nationally.

The person ultimately elected logically should be elected by a majority of the voters (in a democracy).

Everybody should have some input and no voter should have to be forced to vote against his conscience (to avoid throwing his vote away) simply because of an inappropriate electoral system which is incompatible with a democracy. By the way, the 2000 debacle has opened the door for a Constitutional change or perhaps even a new Constitution (which would be a tragedy, as liberals would really change things).

The Big Issues

Consequently, America has become largely a democracy, of sorts, whereby all the people (18 or over) directly elect its governors and leaders (to include the president through the tarred electoral system, as just assessed). However, there are some very inherent problems with democracies because man does not have it in himself to direct his own footsteps (Prov 16:9; 20:24; Jer 10:23).

Importantly, there is still another primary problem in a democracy which is largely unrecognized by Christianity and Judaism, although it is part and parcel of the system. Perhaps this condition, above all else, is one of the reasons that the true believer should not participate in democratic elections. The people of faith must be apolitical, as will be established in subsequent comments herein.

But this major problem remains for all of the persons who do participate in the so-called democratic elections. This dilemma occurs in the sense that the people (theoretically at least) vote for and elect their rulers. In this sense, every person who votes for the winner becomes a party to the resulting good or bad emanating from that winner.

In this context, the people who voted for the diabolical and evil Slick Clinton chose the resulting evil of his administration. As commented upon in other presentations herein, the voters not only voted for him in 1992, but again in 1996; and effectively, again in 1998. Every person who voted for Clinton in any one of those elections is responsible for the sin and evil that he did to people in the US and abroad.

Bearing Responsibility

What this means is that a voter must logically bear some moral responsibility for the person he elects in governmental roles. Voters can’t back off and claim it’s not their fault. It is the voter’s fault. Each and every person who voted for an evil leader must bear some responsibility for the resulting evil. The winning block of voters are a part and parcel of the coming government administration.

If it is evil, then the voters (who voted for it) must not only be responsible, but would perhaps be morally responsible in a sin or righteous role for the resulting good or bad that the leader will impose on the collective people.

In other words, the persons who voted for Clinton may possibly bear the moral responsibility for his actions (lies, murder, hate, sodomy, etc). Every person who voted for Clinton badly needs to repent and be sorry and ashamed for his action.

This is a hard pill for many people to swallow. Voters want to continually vote for cruds and depraved politicians who will lie, cheat, murder, deceive and practice sin and evil in Washington, but yet want to believe that they bear no responsibility for the ensuing evil and depravity.

Conversely, are not the voters themselves sinners in this instance? Yes, every time Clinton bombed and murdered people (at Waco, in the Balkans, in the Sudan, in Washington or whenever and wherever), the voters who elected Clinton themselves also seem responsible for the murders and deaths. Just as he needs to repent of his evil, the voters who voted for him need to repent as well.

Manifestly, the voters who choose, vote for and elect a liar, crook or immoral person to office must assume the responsibility for electing such a person. Americans want to vote for such cruds, but then not accept any personal responsibility for making such a choice. The Scriptural evidence is that these voters are probably in sin and will one day have to repent for their sinful choices.

The same situation surfaced in ancient Yisrael when the people rejected the theocracy and demanded a human king (like the other nations). These people who made this choice were surely in sin in rejecting the government of YHWH. They bore the responsibility for the repressive actions of the subsequent kings of Yisrael. The same is true with modern voters. They must bare the responsibility for their votes.

More on the US Democracy

One more note, from the United States, needs mention before proceeding on in this study. Despite all the prevailing evils and troubles in American politics, the nation is theoretically now a democracy--with its leaders chosen by the popular vote of the generic people. But is this belief the real truth?

In a 1996 video presentation on “America in Peril III,” noted intelligence analyst Mark Koernke of Michigan observed that in the beginning, this nation was formed as a Constitutional republic. In time, it became a Constitutional dictatorship (under Lincoln) and more recently an unconstitutional dictatorship (under FDR). Clearly, it is now a dictatorship which no informed person can argue.

Dr Stan Monteith, in the Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 4), quoted Plato who said: “Democracy passes into despotism.” And that’s certainly what we have become in America in the early 21st century (with the passage of a whole host of laws supposedly against terrorism).

The existence of the so-called US democracy doesn’t mean much of anything in the present environment since people are so ignorant, uninformed and gullible that they are nothing but an irresponsible mob coordinated and controlled by the super rich fat cats who own the entertainment, media and educational activities (by corporate holding companies, foundations, etc) which motivate and exercise virtual control over the voting public.

Consequently, the US democracy is not really a true democracy. It is one only in theory and something for school textbooks and gullible teachers to put into the minds of small children.

As the perceptive Mark Koernke correctly noted, America is an unconstitutional dictatorship--right now!

The American Presidents

Most US presidents have been bad--either because they were personally sorry, were bought and paid for by America’s ruling plutocrats, got some tough breaks during their tenure in office, or were outright liberals and Socialists.

All during the 20th century, the common problem has been that the plutocrats took over America and started electing deceitful, dishonest men to the presidency--men who had no personal loyalty to America or its people, but were instead motivated by personal gain and greed (which the plutocrats willingly provided). The last true, pro-American president was William Howard Taft, elected in 1908.

Starting with Woodrow Wilson, the money power has owned all of them outright to various degrees. Some of them might not have fully understood how well they were controlled (like perhaps Eisenhower and Reagan). But they were controlled and did perform as they were programmed to do. Assuredly, Eisenhower and Reagan were very naive men in terms of what all was going on under them.

As noted earlier herein, it must be said that Kennedy and Nixon both eventually woke up and tried (unsuccessfully) to break free of their bondage (as did Lincoln, in his day). But these were isolated incidents.

Otherwise, the plutocrats also elected some presidents before Taft--for example, Abe Lincoln, Ulysses Grant and others. Teddy Roosevelt was a banker’s man, just as was FDR. However, the 19th century presidents were not totally owned by the fat cats, as was true, starting with Wilson.

Although he was personally sorry and was owned by the ruling plutocrats, one must give some credit to Warren Harding who was elected in 1920. He came in during prohibition which was a bad break. But to his credit, he signed the only immigration bill in American history which imposed some restrictions on the type of people flooding into this nation (in the form of the old quotas act).

How It Works

One of the best illustrations of how powerful the US plutocrats are in American politics was told by a Nixon aide at the 1968 Republican presidential nominating convention.

Sometime after Richard Nixon was nominated for president, David Rockefeller had a meeting with Nixon, at Nixon’s hotel suite. One of the points of discussion was the composition of Nixon’s cabinet on the premise that he would be elected president of the United States (as indeed did subsequently happen).

The story was that Rockefeller laid out a list of certain people who he wanted in certain roles in the Nixon cabinet.

The subsequent revelation of this meeting and the discussion apparently did not reflect what Nixon’s reaction was to this demand from Rockefeller. However, it is not hard to see that in 1968-1969 Nixon obeyed the Rockefeller plutocrat and did as he was told. In other words, the Rockefeller selected people were placed in the presidential cabinet.

There always has to have been some question about the input of the Rothschild plutocrats in the Nixon election. Manifestly, Richard Nixon was a Rockefeller Republican and was surely controlled by the Rockefeller money interests. It is true that by 1972 Nixon had made the Amalekite Jew plutocrats mad enough that he had to go.

He closed the gold window on the exchange of US paper money for gold by foreign banks (this upset the Rothschilds who are the world’s leading owners of gold); and tragically, for him, he harbored plans to move against the Jewish (correctly the Amalekite--ed) control of the US media (this point is discussed elsewhere herein).

In any case, the Amalekite Jew bankers/masters in the United States began moving against Nixon in early 1973, just after his installation as US president for a second term. The Amalekites used their media powers to completely do Nixon in over the petty burglary at the Watergate complex and his efforts to lie about it.

Nixon never had a chance as the “Washington Post” and other Amalekite controlled media powers constantly bombarded the public about the evils of Richard Nixon. Soon, he was on the way out.

As noted elsewhere herein, Nixon’s nickname was Tricky Dick--in comparison with the nickname Slick Willy as used for Bill Clinton. The difference between the two was that Nixon’s evils were in the minor leagues and child’s play compared to the diabolical Clinton (who always answered to the Amalekite plutocrats).

More History

From Lincoln, and on to Taft, most of the presidents not only had ties to the money power (except for James Garfield, who was elected in 1880 and assassinated in 1881), but were not really good people. Perhaps all of these persons were not totally subservient to the money power, as happened after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, but they had shortcomings or failures.

Before Abraham Lincoln (who manifestly was deceptive and dishonest, and the first, real, live, American politician who had no personal scruples or integrity), there were a few good presidents. Certainly, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler and James Buchanan were good men.

The Virginians (Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) were likewise good people, though they failed in dealing with the immigration problem. Many persons persist on believing that George Washington was a good president. And he did have some good points. He evidently was a man of honor and integrity, but very weak as a president.

Howbeit, Washington’s mistake was in letting the Amalekite Alexander Hamilton (correctly Levine) take over much of the leadership in the executive branch. Hamilton and pro banker people in the Congress (like Vice President John Adams, who ran the Senate) were an infectious evil, which started the American path to plutocratic rule.

Washington stupidly sat by and allowed the establishment of the First US Bank, plus other nefarious schemes to benefit the bankers and fat cats (some of which are described elsewhere herein).

In this writer’s assessment of the bad presidents, clearly Bill Clinton was number one in being the absolute worst. Franklin Roosevelt was number two and Abraham Lincoln was number three. Then comes Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, “Useless” Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower--in that order.

A February 2000 Survey

A news report on Feb 21, 2000, said that one of the polling groups surveyed Americans on the best and worst presidents in American history. The report was brief and did not go into the specifics of the sample. Logically, it must have been a stratified sample of some sort because most Americans know nothing about any presidents, beyond the last few (who ruled while they were alive).

In any case, the survey said that the number one, best president of all was Abraham Lincoln--as might be expected since Americans have been taught and programmed for years that he was virtually on the god level. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was number two and George Washington was number three.

Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson were next in sequence of the alleged good ones. Tragically, James Buchanan came in last as the worst president of all. This is quite a fluke because Buchanan was hands down far superior to most of the others rated ahead of him.

Except for Washington and Jefferson, the ones rated as being the best were actually all not only political liberals (who were owned by or linked to the money power), but they were outright Socialists who were (ignorantly) dedicated to the destruction of the United States. Moreover, the so-called “best” presidents (especially Lincoln, Wilson and FDR) were the war presidents, responsible for the death of millions.

The essence of this report is that the American viewpoint is so warped that most Americans have no sense of right and wrong at all. They look at the past histories of some of the biggest scoundrels and evil men in American history and choose them to be the best presidents. And of the truly better presidents, they rate them at the bottom. The American perception of right and wrong is totally warped.

Yes, the Fight Was Lost in 1932

Quite naturally, the so-called patriots (as will be discussed in a later chapter), who have had visions of “saving” America and the American people, are all just wet behind the ears. They are almost all alone in this since the total general public is completely in favor of the status quo. As noted throughout this publication, these would-be patriots lost their fight in 1932 with the election of Franklin Roosevelt.

The liberals have had 70 years to educate little children and they have succeeded. The modern generation is entirely different from the earlier ones at Concord, at Valley Forge, at the Alamo, at Bull Run, at Manila Bay and so forth. The moderns know little or nothing about anything. They don’t know, aren’t interested and don’t want to know.

It’s really all over for the patriots grasping at straws since they have already lost their fight. Yes, the fight seems to have been lost by the carnal, unconverted Americans back in 1932 with the election of the depraved Amalekite Roosevelt.

So, what can one do who is concerned with the liberalism, Socialism and humanism that completely dominates modern American life?

The only possible answer is education (which will be addressed in chapters to follow).

Chapter 362--Sun Worship Government Corruption

The Greeks

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” notes that democracies (first) flourished in the early Greek city states before finally giving way to imperialism (thus, before Alexander the Great). Obviously, a democracy, as a form of human government, has its origin in ancient Grecian sun worship (and may link to the evolutionist Democritus, c400 BCE, cited earlier). Naturally, they fit well into the modern, Western, sun worship culture.

More Problems in Democracies

On the surface, a democracy sounds good in the sense of man having to govern himself (outside the bounds of a legitimate theocracy). As the January-February 2000 “Tzemach Letter” (p. 1) noted, the word democracy is based upon two Greek words--demos, meaning common people, and krateo, meaning strength or power.

Thus, democracy theoretically means the empowerment of the common people. Surely, this definition and idea would appeal to most of the common people. But tragically, there are serious problems in the vein of what can very easily happen in a democracy. In other words, things don’t really work out as well as they theoretically should in a democracy.

Conversely, a US War Department Training Manual (No 2000-25, p. 91) defined a democracy as a “government of the masses; authority derived from mass meetings or other forms of direct expression; results in mobocracy; communistic attitude toward property (negating property rights); presence of the will of the majority to regulate whether by deliberation or passion, prejudice or impulse without regard to restraint or consequence; and results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.”

This same War Department TM went on to discuss citizenship and a republic which is what the United States was originally organized as being. The production date for this TM was Nov 30, 1928. Shortly after Franklin Roosevelt took over in 1933, this 156 page manual was canceled and all copies in the US Government were ordered to be destroyed.

And More Problems

The just quoted “Tzemach Letter” (p. 1) goes on to recognize some of the same problems which were broached in the War Department Training Manual.

“Tzemach” says that “The difficulty with the democratic process is that the masses are easily swayed by ungodly leaders. This is especially true today when the media provides the possibility of cultivating an image that in no way reflects the true character and views of the individual in question. Unscrupulous leaders make unrealistic promises to gain public support and power. This results in the observed trend to evil in the nations.”

Therefore, problems inevitably become reality in a democracy. Collectively, people are extremely gullible and manipulative by corrupt and dishonest leaders. Joe Six Pack and Sally Soap Opera are not exactly capable of choosing the best of anything.

The failure to take action against Slick Clinton was the result of the democratic public opinion polls (and Clinton blackmail operations against members of Congress, as discussed elsewhere herein). The prevailing love of Clinton in the democratic polls caused a fear in the Senate--precluding them from taking action against the corrupt Clinton.

For sure, democracies promote “mob” rule without the restrains of right and wrong, even from the law, as just noted. Yes, the famous lynch parties and wild mobs have always been democratic.

The Scriptures have records of mob rule--when the people clamored for Aaron to make them gods to worship during the Exodus (Ex 32:1), and when the people demanded a human king to replace the theocracy (I Sam 8:4-7, 9). A democracy is tantamount to mob rule.

Still More Problems

Since democracies are designed so that the governing politicians occasionally must shell out some benefits/dole to the voting public (in the way of jobs, money, etc), they have a tendency of promoting vast bureaucracies which grow in size over time. The United States is a classic illustration of the continuing growth and expansion of the federal bureaucracy.

Even when the people theoretically elect a conservative government to reign in the expanding bureaucracy, the result usually backfires.

A good sample of this problem was highlighted in a news report in the Jan 24, 2003, “The Week” (p. 12), which focused upon the US government after two years of George W. Bush. As this report noted-- “after two years in the Oval Office, Bush is presiding over the biggest, most expansive, federal government in history."

Perhaps the biggest Bush effort to expand the US bureaucracy came in 2002 and 2003 with the new US Department of Homeland Security. Instead of cutting bureaucratic offices, Bush has merely added new ones. As “The Week” asked-- “What happened to conservatism?”

Beyond the above obviously bad features of a democracy, there are still some more glaring problems.

Tragically, democracies allow corrupt governmental administrations to materialize (as has happened in the US). And furthermore, they allow the big money interests (who really call the shots) to take over--which means that the government becomes a type of a plutocratic democracy.

Canada

Canada, to the North of the United States, has set the pace for what has been happening all over the Christian West in terms of its human governments.

The April 26, 2002, “The Week” (p. 5) had a news report from Ottawa, Canada on a poll taken to address how Canadians feel about their government. The latest finding is that 69% of Canadians believe that their government is corrupt. This poll followed the dumping of Alfonso Gagliano (a mixed blooded Italian?) from the Cabinet for his efforts at forcing a private company to hire his friend.

The Canadian Auditor General Sheila Fraser said in her annual report that the government’s accounting practices and standards are so loose that auditors are ill-equipped to catch the government crooks operating in Canada.

Former parliament member Lee Morrison said that Canadians have grown accustomed to seeing their leaders get mixed up in scandals. He added that politics is a waste of time. He noted that people expect to “just see this and shrug... They expect to be screwed.”

American Government

While things are grossly bad in Canada, in fairness, the Canadians are now in the minor leagues on corruption, in comparison with how things take place South of the border in the United States.

As “Prophecy Flash” observed-- “Can you imagine working at the following company? It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics: 29 have been accused of spousal abuse. 7 have been arrested for fraud. 19 have been accused of writing bad checks. 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses. 3 have been arrested for assault. 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.

“8 have been arrested for shoplifting. 21 are current defendants in law suits. In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving. Can you guess which organization this is? Give up? It’s the members of the United States Congress. The same group that perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line” (Mar-Apr 2000 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 76).

Corrupt and/or Sorry Politicians

The power of the super rich to elect political leaders was discussed in previous chapters. The handful of the super rich who own the giant media corporations are making a play for world government. The only question about this motion is that there is some internal conflict in establishing the pecking order (since each person or force wants to be the world’s governor).

In any case, the super rich, and almost without exception through their ownership and/or control of powerful media companies, pretty well call most of the shots of importance in laws emanating from legislatures or other branches of government.

Thus, many supposedly honest legislators will ultimately bend and fail to deliver as they should for their people.

Hence, this brings up another point worth considering, in the case of either a republic or limited democracy. While it is unthinkable, the truth seems to be that many elected leaders are either corrupt or just sorry and lazy in terms of legislation that they will willingly agree to and approve.

In modern America, part of the problem is that all men and women (and certainly, those men and women elected to public office) are extremely busy with multitudes of things to do (usually, in the sense of a pursuit of their personal idols and gods in life).

Apparently, it is this situation which also goes to help the super rich plutocrats establish their control over a nation. In other words, the official leaders are either corrupt and won’t stop this control or they are simply incompetent and lazy about its existence.

In any case, most American legislators sit back today and do nothing about being responsible in their offices. As will be covered in later chapters, the legal profession has taken over many legislatures and they seem to thrive upon the theory of many, many, complicated laws which only lawyers can read and interpret. So this is part of the problem.

Otherwise, there is the realty that most laws now passed by the US Congress are enormously large in size (sometimes, literally many inches thick with thousands of pages). Obviously, the legislators that pass these laws and the presidents who sign them never read them. This should be a clue that something is fundamentally wrong with the US system as it now operates.

A Sample

This point was well demonstrated in the Apr 3-16, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” paper in an article on “Who Controls the Idaho State Legislature” by Bill Denman. Bill wrote that one Idaho legislator publicly reported that 25% of the bills introduced in the ID Legislature were written by legislators. The other 75% all come from the bureaucracy and various associations.

Actually, much of the governing bureaucracy is now organized (i.e. school teachers have their own unions, etc) so that there often is some overlap in this area. But the point must be made that legislators do not prepare most of the bills. Instead, vested interests prepare the bills and provide the push to get them enacted.

When one adds in the influence of the super rich and the organizations which they dominate, coupled with their media control, it is evident that the typical person on the street has little or no influence on legislation at any level. The politicians are all bought and paid for by special interest groups (most or all of which are controlled directly or indirectly by the plutocrats).

Another Example

The Mar-Apr 2002 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 76) had a reader’s letter and some commentary which told a most fascinating tale from the Texas legislature in the 1960s. It seems that one of the Texas legislators became annoyed with his fellow legislators and their practice of passing bills without even reading them.

Therefore, he introduced a bill “commending Mr. Albert DiSalvo for his outstanding work in population control.” The story is that this bill passed the Texas legislature unanimously.

At the time of this bill, Mr DiSalvo was on trial for a series of murders. He was better known under his nickname-- “The Boston Strangler.”

Alexander Fraser Tytler

Before the American Revolutionary War of over 200 years ago, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler analyzed the existing situation in the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic of some 2,000 years earlier. He concluded that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government (per the “Freeman” magazine).

Tytler also said that a democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury; with the result that the democracy collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.

If there was ever a time when Tytler’s remarks struck home, it has been in the presidential campaign of 2000 where the American populous and candidates all had hopes of a victory in November 2000 to elect a successor to Bill Clinton and a successor who would restore some honor and integrity to the US government (the 2000 elections will be discussed below and in later chapters).

More on the American Reality

Since Christian Socialism and humanism took over in America with Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, most American politicians have talked good to get elected. Most of them talk about being fiscal conservatives, and being persons frugal with the taxpayers’ moneys. But in 2000, all of this talk changed, and especially with the Democrat candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley.

These two jokes went regularly in January, February and March 2000 to the nation’s minorities with their special appeals for votes (and it is these minorities who generally benefit the most from the welfare state and other government actions to grant privileges and special rights).

Whenever Gore and Bradley debated, they each tried to outdo the other in the give-aways and in promises of more give-aways if elected. At Black gatherings, Gore would cry and moan about what all he had done in Black welfare and special rights--like in affirmative action. Bradley came on to brag about how much he had voted for Black welfare and/or affirmative action.

At a largely Black rally in Harlem on February 21, 2000, both Gore and Bradley were trying to outdo each other on Black benefits. When neither could subdue his opponent on Black give-aways, one of them brought up gun control (as if liberal and permissive Blacks were in favor of gun control laws).

Bradley accused Gore of having a pro-gun position when he was a Senator years ago. Of course, Gore called Bradley a liar and argued that even this year, he rushed back to Washington to break a tie breaking vote on more gun control laws.

Tragically, for America, things have changed over the years (as just noted, with the Gore-Bradley tactics). Now, the politicians are tripping all over themselves in trying to outdo their opponents in give-aways and special benefits and privileges for specific groups of minorities (Blacks, queers, women, Hispanics, etc). The days of talking about fiscal conservatism in America are over.

Slick Manipulated the Blacks

One of the things which propelled Slick Clinton’s enormous political success, first in Arkansas and subsequently across the United States, was how he shrewdly and carefully manipulated Black people. Very early, in his career, he recognized that Black voters would be his base of support.

To be sure that the generic Africans delivered at the polls, Slick apparently realized that two things would be needed. First, he had to be a true, liberal Democrat who would promise and deliver, where possible, massive amounts of welfare, jobs and benefits for Negroes. The second need was huge sums of money to pay off the Black leaders (principally preachers) in order for them to get the Negro vote out.

As discussed elsewhere herein, Slick turned to organized crime to provide him with a significant portion of his needed money. Otherwise, he was always receptive to bribes, both in Arkansas and nationally. For example, the Chinese payments of money to him during the 1996 political campaign were made for obvious later benefits to them. Some called this treason. But the American public didn’t care.

With these huge blocks of campaign money to pay off Black preachers, and by periodically going to the Negro community to offer encouragement, speeches and talks, Slick successfully manipulated the Africans the most of any American president in history. Bill Clinton, per his own words, says that he was the first Black president (Oct 4, 1999, “US News & World Report,” p. 9). Many Blacks believed him.

This Black support paid off early in 1998 during his sodomite troubles. About the only persons who remained solidly behind Slick was his primary Black base of support. A poll of African-Americans around Sep 1, 1998, indicated that 87% of them approved of both Slick’s job performance and morals, as opposed to 7% who disapproved.

With the upcoming 1998 elections, Clinton again turned to the Negroes for them to deliver some liberal Democrat victories at the polls, which would penalize the Republicans and deter the talk of impeachment. Clinton had the money for the necessary payoffs and the Blacks responded.

Black Voter Fraud

Many people, particularly in the American South (where significant numbers of Negroes live), have known for years that Blacks vote in blocs and essentially for the Democrats who favor the give-away programs that they benefit from. But moreover, it is also known in the South that groups of Blacks, under their Negro leaders and preachers, commit gross voting fraud whenever possible in US elections.

The way this works out is that African leaders (preachers) will gather up a busload or carload of Blacks and go to one precinct where they all vote Democrat. Then the leader takes them to another precinct where they vote again for the same Democrat candidates. And perhaps a third, fourth or fifth time, this same load of Blacks may get to vote again and again in different precincts.

For this scam, all that is needed is a little money to pay off the Black leaders to get them pepped up to run the bus or car caravans to the polls. If Southern White politicians speak out and condemn this vote fraud, they are immediately chastised and condemned in the controlled media as racists and White supremacists.

In late October 1998, one district in Georgia proposed a solution. They would install TV cameras at their precincts to monitor the voters. With this film, it would have been later possible to see if some voters voted in two or more precincts.

While this sounded good to a few Southern Whites (who were familiar with Black voting habits), it was immediately condemned in the controlled national media as being racist (obviously, since it would reveal Black voter fraud--which must never be allowed to happen in the politically correct, controlled society).

Since Slick Clinton was and is so incredibly dishonest and crooked, there was little doubt but that he has used this Black voter fraud process many times over in his elections in Arkansas.

Actually, a number of White leaders in Arkansas (including a former justice of the Arkansas State Supreme Court) have argued for years that Slick manipulated and used the huge Black population in the Mississippi Delta in Eastern Arkansas to get elected and re-elected (as suggested in the “Clinton Chronicles” video).

Stealing Elections

The public is so mesmerized with apathy and indifference that crooks like Slick Clinton have discovered that elections can easily be stolen in heavily Black and Hispanic voting areas and nothing will be done about it. If any critic speaks out, he is immediately branded by the controlled media as a racist and White supremacist, as just noted.

The public is so gullible and the media is so dishonest that it is impossible to raise any question over the culture and conduct of Blacks and Hispanics in the contemporary American culture (however dishonest and corrupt they may be).

Obviously, this reality is what has been fueling the Democrat leadership in the United States to open America’s borders to as many Colored persons as possible. The Blacks and Hispanics bloc vote for Democrats (although George W. Bush did get some Hispanic votes in Florida in 2000); and the more that come in (legally or illegally), the better it is for Democrat politicians.

With disinterested officials and a could care less (controlled) media, the die is cast that more and more elections will be stolen by large blocs of particularly Negro voters (and Hispanics to a lesser degree) in the future.

For the interim, it means that White political crooks like Slick Clinton (who are perfectly willing to sell the US out for votes) will benefit. As the Colored power accelerates, more and more Black (and Hispanic) political leaders will emerge (which means a vast acceleration in Colored incompetence and corruption).

The Modern Democrat Propensity for Fraud

While it is manifestly true that both Democrats and Republicans can steal elections, in fairness, there is a difference in degrees of dishonesty and corruption. As noted in previous comments, the more WASP types among Republicans are just not as prone for dishonesty--as is true with Edomite, Black and Hispanic Democrats. All of them can be crooks. It’s just that one definition tends to be worse than the other.

Therefore, in modern America, the Democrats are usually the people who do the short-changing and cheating in elections (and they get away with it because the liberal, leftist, controlled media is on their side). Primarily, this issue arises because Blacks and Amalekites, in particular (who are mostly Democrats), won’t bat an eye about committing fraud in an election (as noted earlier).

It is also true that in the liberal mentality, stealing an election is no big deal. Liberals, Socialists and humanists, by and large, are generally very secular and immoral. Since they seem to have little or no religious scruples (which some WASPs have), and since they are so opposed to righteousness and truth, they will often do anything without any semblance of morality or concern for righteousness.

The Amalekites are obviously the most immoral and dishonest of all forms of the leftist combine. As the Amalekites are children of Satan (both mentally and spiritually), they have no qualms at all about committing fraud in democratic elections (or anything else for that matter). In the United States, the Amalekite Jew bankers/masters own the US Democrat party for all purposes.

Corruption Prevails

Truly, in the United States, the so-called democracy has turned into a joke where crooked politicians and their plutocratic backers steal elections, right and left, and no one in authority seems to care one way or the other or do anything about it.

Of course, the dilemma starts with the way the nation is set up or how it has evolved to allow powerful, super rich plutocrats to own virtually the entire media and public education systems (as is thoroughly described elsewhere herein, on how the real rulers in America call the shots on almost all questions of importance).

While the above comments have focused upon the Democrats and their propensity for fraud and corruption, the point must be made again that the Republicans are also bad. It’s just that the Republicans are miles behind the Democrats on dishonesty and stealing elections.

The same conclusion can be applied to particular politicians of the two ruling parties. Most American politicians are dishonest and will willingly sell their own constituents, family, friends and even their own mothers out to get elected. There is simply no way to assess modern American politicians (collectively) without being sick and depressed over how utterly sorry and corrupt that they are in reality.

Just as the Democrat party is the worst of the two major parties, the same thing can be generally said about Democrat politicians vis-à-vis Republican politicians. Both peoples are pathetically evil, sorry and corrupt. But of the two, one must acknowledge that Democrat politicians are probably the more wretched.

This doesn’t mean that most Republicans are not evil. It just means that they are not as evil as most Democrats (who are generally liberals with no sense of morality, honesty or integrity at all in their mental make-ups). Thus, essentially, both types of politicians are bad. But the liberal Democrats are the worst.

Third Parties?

In terms of other political parties, probably the same thing could be said for them if they actually held political power in the United States. These small third parties are irrelevant to the political destiny of the US and her sub-components. Since they have no role, there is no point in trying to determine how crooked that they are in comparison with the two ruling parties.

Probably, right now, people of more character and honor would automatically flock to and identify with some of the small third parties (because they are substantially better than the two ruling parties). But since they are not getting any money and support from the ruling plutocrats, there is simply the reality that most of these third parties have not yet been corrupted by money.

If any of these third parties ever reach the big leagues (which they cannot ever accomplish in the present situation because the plutocrats control the current reality, and they are simply not going to allow a third party to surface and cause an impact on anything of significance), they too would become corrupted.

Hypothetically speaking, if a third party did gain some power and influence, the plutocrats would bring their stacks of money in to corrupt it and its people just as they have done with the Democrats and Republicans.

In the present US democracy, it is simply impossible to avoid the reality that the plutocrats really call the political shots (through their ownership and/or control of the national media and their influence over the education system, primarily by their large tax-exempt foundations).

Despotism/Dictatorship in the Oligarchy

This evolution of two powerful primary political parties (which are ruled from behind the scenes by a handful of super rich plutocrats), to rule the destiny of the United States, has created a situation where the United States has become a “oligarchy,” in that rulership exists with the few (Oct-Dec 2002 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 4).

Not only has America sat back and allowed an oligarchy to develop (where rulership is in the hands of a few), but this same system has evolved to be a despotic system, in that the rulership has unlimited and absolute power (ibid, p. 4). In a sense, the despotism exists in a form of a dictatorship--in that the dictators make the rules and no one can oppose them.

Some History

In 1903, a boy was born into the Dillinger family on a farm about 20 miles South of Indianapolis, Indiana. His given name was John and he was to eventually provide some interesting and valuable insight on how the American system works.

By the time of the roaring twenties, young John Dillinger had turned out to be a petty, small-time, two-bit crook. With the arrival of the thirties, John Dillinger had graduated into being a higher class thief by becoming a bank robber (and a murderer as well because he did kill two or more people over the years).

In those days in Americana, the previously discussed J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, developed quite a reputation for focusing the federal operations on these petty bank robbers.

J. Edgar was never concerned with the organized crime syndicates of the real gangsters and criminals--like the Amalekite Jewish, Irish and Sicilian networks (plus, the petty crooks were much easier to catch than the more professional, organized criminals).

As pointed out earlier, Hoover always maintained that there was no organized crime in America (perhaps because the Mob had some revealing photos of him and his companion, Deputy FBI Director Clyde Anderson Tolson, engaged in a homosexual act). But J. Edgar was not about to let some small time hood (like Dillinger) get away with robbing banks.

As is well known in America, the two most dastardly and horrible crimes of all (nationally) are the murder of a law enforcement officer and the robbing of a bank. When a person kills a cop, the act demonstrates an action of defiance and rebellion against the Big Brother state.

Obviously, the state is most concerned about throwing the book at people who might become rebellious and oppose its actions (which include the establishment of the New World Order in the present environment).

As far as bank robbers, they have to be vigorously pursued because they would dare presume to rip off the banks that are owned by the plutocrats. It’s no big deal that a small time hood would rob a local liquor or convenience store. But it becomes a major criminal transgression when the same hood dares to rob a bank.

The End of Dillinger

Thus, J. Edgar Hoover knew where his bread was buttered. He was in no mood to take on the likes of Meyer Lansky, Carlos Marcello and so forth. But J. Edgar went after people like Dillinger with a vengeance. Consequently, Dillinger quickly had the nation’s entire police powers after him when be became a bank robber (as also happened with Bonnie & Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, etc).

With this enormous police focus on John, it wasn’t long before he was arrested and put in a local Indiana jail. While there, Dillinger shrewdly used a block of wood, a carving knife and some shoe polish to make himself a toy gun. He proceeded to use the toy gun and break from jail. This event caused quite an uproar in the media. John Dillinger received much notoriety and became public enemy number one (per the FBI).

Some time passed and Dillinger’s bank robbing gang was wiped out.

But John Dillinger, himself, got away and fled to Chicago. He was in Chicago in 1933 and 1934 when the famous (or infamous, however he was to be characterized) Melvin Purvis was a senior agent in the Chicago FBI office trying to track down Dillinger (like his boss Hoover, Purvis was not concerned with the real big time gangsters. His effort was on trying to catch petty crooks).

Dillinger was holed up in early 1934 with his girl friend Pauline Hamilton. It was too bad for Dillinger, but Pauline had a girl friend named Anna Sage, who was in a conflict with US immigration authorities.

Apparently, Anna contacted the FBI in an effort to ameliorate her immigration problems. She told the bureau that she, Pauline and Dillinger were going to the Biograph Theater on July 22, 1934, and that she would be wearing a red dress. So Purvis and his gang of FBI agents set up a trap for Dillinger at the Biograph on Lincoln Avenue that hot, steamy, July day.

Whereas Dillinger had been keeping a low profile and staying in his room, he actually ventured out that day to see a movie called “Manhattan Melodrama” with Clark Gable and William Powell. After watching the film, the three people left the theater and were accosted by Purvis at a near-by alleyway on Lincoln Avenue. Dillinger was shot dead by a stream of FBI bullets.

This background on the crook John Dillinger brings up the subject of the film that he wanted to see.

“Manhattan Melodrama”

The movie was about two men who had been close friends for many years, going back to their childhoods. Powell was the honest, straight as an arrow, good man while Gable was a petty, two bit crook who ran a gambling hall.

In time, the Gable character murdered a couple of people and was fully prosecuted for the second killing (where the evidence was conclusive, in contrast to a lack of evidence in the first killing) by his boyhood friend Powell (who just happened to be the local District Attorney).

The prosecutor won his case and was elected Governor of New York (perhaps because he was shown to be a man of some integrity when he fully prosecuted his own boyhood friend). The conviction came down for the friend to die in the Sing Sing electric chair.

After winning the Governor’s race, the question of a commutation of sentence for his boyhood friend came up. Again, proving that he was as straight as an arrow, the Governor refused to commute the sentence of his life long friend. His friend was then set to die in the chair.

Later, it developed that some information came to the Governor on why his crooked friend murdered his victim. As it turned out, the Gable character murdered the guy because he was causing trouble for his best friend, the prosecutor.

Just hours before the convicted murderer was to die in the chair, the Governor went to see his friend and offered to commute the sentence. The friend turned him down cold and died that night.

The Governor then reacted in a most peculiar way (peculiar by the standards of modern American politicians). He went before a joint session of the New York legislature and told the background on what all had happened and his willingness, in the end, to use his office to grant a personal favor to his friend (by commuting his death sentence).

Accordingly, the Governor resigned his office as Governor because he felt that he had dishonored his office of trust.

The Essence Here

The essence of this fictional story is that it was a contrast between two men--one crooked as a snake and the other straight as a telephone poll. The straight man routinely pushed all of his personal feelings, wishes and benefits aside to do his duty as required by law.

Yet, the straight man, weakened in a moment of emotion, was prepared to sell his conscious and honor out to help his friend. As it turned out, this sell-out was avoided. But instead of letting the event pass him, and in a way that would have been unnoticed by the general public, his conscience surfaced again to make him do a most unusual thing.

In the end, he confessed all and honorably resigned as the Governor of New York. If he had not made his public declaration, no one would be the wiser (except The MOST HIGH). In human lingo, he could have easily beat the rap.

While there was nothing in the movie to suggest any real sense of religion in the way that things worked out, it is manifestly clear that if a person was truly religious, he would have had to react just as the good guy did in publicly confessing his sin and failure.

The Bottom Line

Now, the question must come up. Who, among modern American politicians, would react as the good guy did in this 1934 movie? Frankly, it is inconceivable that any modern American politician would do as this man did in publicly humiliating himself in order to make righteousness prevail.

In truth, most American politicians would have sold out justice in the very beginning. And certainly, they would never publicly confess their sins and shortcomings.

Chapter 363--The 2000 US Sun Worship Elections

The US Crisis

Both of the major US parties are grossly immoral, vulgar and repulsive from the standpoint of righteousness, integrity, honor and character. Manifestly, the liberal, leftist Democrats are the worst of the two (as they are more directly controlled by the evil Amalekite bankers/masters, who are basically immoral). Truly, the Democrats are especially reprehensible and depraved (although the Republicans are not far behind).

While most of the candidates in all of the elections are called Christians (or at least, they call themselves Christians), they are far removed from historic Christianity and certainly from the righteousness of YHWH’s Torah. Most of them (especially the liberals) are about as immoral, depraved and wretched as a bunch of pathetic ally cats. Yet, they hypocritically claim to be moral and good people.

As has been true for ages in America, the two main parties (the Democrats and the Republicans) froze out all other political alternatives in 2000 so that generally only Bush and Gore were on the ballots and at issue. The other parties and candidates were essentially non-issues in the American political context.

Thus, Americans really had no choice in the 2000 elections. But the gullible voters believed that they had a choice. So this kept the system together until election day on November 7th.

These lines are being written in 2003--after the 2000 election. Candidates like Bush, Gore, Buchanan, Nader and the others had been off and running for many months. And as had been the US practice for ages, the two primary parties pretty well wrapped up the election for themselves.

But as noted earlier, a problem developed because Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral vote (because of winning Florida). With this dilemma, a number of Democrats claimed that there were irregularities in the election and especially in Palm Beach, Florida (with numbers of Amalekite and Black Democrats).

The Florida Mess, Revisited

The Florida crisis was briefly noted in prior chapters. But it needs further comment at this time. After the first count in Florida, the state conducted a second count which made some important changes in the statistics, but did not change the overall Bush win. Thence, Democrats complained about “voting irregularities” in selected Democrat counties.

Specifically, Gore complainants charged that officials in Palm Beach County (who were Democrats in a largely Democrat county) used a bad ballot form which resulted in a throw out of 19,000 ballots because those ballots reportedly contained presidential votes for two candidates (but Bush proponents noted that this was not unusual because some 15,000 ballots were double voted in the preceding election).

Allegations also persisted that some people there voted mistakenly for Pat Buchanan when they thought that they were voting for Gore (although the question must be asked--how is it possible that people can know that they voted for the wrong man in a de-facto situation without looking at their ballots and the reality that they had a different belief in the voting booth, as they looked at and punched their ballots?).

Next, complications arose because the ballots had been designed for machine counting with the voters instructed to punch out perforated chads. However, some chads were not punched out by voters. Some were partially punched or only slightly dimpled, indented, marked or smeared (thus, a question--was the voter incompetent or did he change his mind and decide to not vote for president?).

Thus, Gore and his Democrat supporters decided that the three largely Democrat counties in South Florida should be allowed to recount their votes manually (with the Democrat officials allowed discretionary authority on how they would interpret and count the votes).

Since these chosen counties were overwhelmingly Democrat (with limited Republicans), it meant that Gore statistically stood to pick up a large number of new votes.

Finally, when the overseas ballots came in by mail, it was discovered that many US military post offices (especially Naval ships at sea) had failed to post mark ballots of US service people. Accordingly, Democrat counties disallowed and threw out some 1,500 of those ballots. Since most military people were substantially for Bush, the throw out decision benefited Gore significantly.

The Fall-Out

The essence of the problem was that the Democrats maintained that Democrat county officials in three heavily Democrat counties reserved the right to manually check all of the ballots and make decisions (speculate) upon the “intent” of the voter. Naturally, Bush disagreed and the FL Secretary of the State maintained that the counties had to have their vote tallies in within seven days by FL law. So the issue went to court.

The Democrat appointed Florida Supreme Court held for Gore (as described in a prior chapter). This allowed the Democrats to have access to the ballots in the three heavily Democrat counties and to massage them--almost however they chose. FL Secretary of State Katherine Harris was ordered to accept new vote totals from these counties, per a court-designated, new, deadline date.

Thereupon, this problem went to the US Supreme Court (where the decision was vacated temporarily, as discussed in a former chapter).

Of the three Democrat counties, one abandoned its hand recount plans for lack of time; another made its recount, but did not meet the deadline; and the third finished and got its totals to Harris in accordance with the deadline. With the new totals, Bush was still the winner. So the Secretary of State certified Bush the winner in Florida. Gore was unhappy and commenced several new court actions to fight on.

The stream of Democrat complaints made the Republicans take a second look and note that they, too, could complain over the vote count processes in Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa and New Mexico (though the Republicans later failed to follow-up in those states). Within days, the whole nation was in a turmoil. There was even open hostilities and confrontations between many Republicans and Democrats.

After several court actions (going both ways), the FL Supreme Court ruled again for more hand counts (as noted in a prior chapter). This action also went to the US Supreme Court for a stay (discussed earlier)--because of questions about a lack of a standard for counting votes (as discussed in a prior chapter). It was remanded back to the Florida Supreme Court (which dropped the matter, after Gore conceded).

While the election seemed settled in mid December of 2000, there were still some potential problems which could devolve it to the US Congress. The problem there was a mess too because the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate was tied (but was effectively controlled by the Democrats with the ability of Vice President Gore to break any tie breaking votes for the time being while he was still Vice-President).

Slick Clinton got in on the action when his GSA Administrator initially said that she would not recognize the Bush win for purposes of facilities or money for a Republican transition team. Since the election problem dragged on and on, it meant that Slick would have some opportunity to regain the presidency in the future (by a new constitution, as dissatisfaction over the electoral college spread among the people).

More From Florida

It is significant that the complaints in Palm Beach, Florida arose because Democrats believed that they were short-changed (despite the fact that county officials were Democrats themselves). Naturally, the leftist media went wild to report on this event.

This is interesting because at least one or more witnesses allegedly saw one of the Palm Beach election officials (an activist-Democrat woman, evidently named Ms Roberts, who had worked for Gore) in Palm Beach busy punching out candidate boxes on a stack of Palm Beach ballots just after the election was over. One of the witnesses actually filed a lawsuit in Palm Beach County over this act of alleged fraud.

A few days later (on Nov 15th), another one of the leading Democrat officials (Irving Slosberg, who was a likely Amalekite and also who just happened to be a Democrat legislator and activist in Palm Beach County) was found to be carrying a “Votamatic” machine in his automobile by the Palm Beach Police (first reported on ABC News and discussed on the Nov 16, 2000, G. Gordon Liddy Radio Talk Show).

The machine was one that was made to punch out the chads on the Florida ballots. Interestingly, every time Democrat officials gained access to the ballots, a quantity of the small chads would, all of a sudden, appear on the floor. One Palm Beach, Democrat, woman official was actually accused of eating some chads (to keep them from being found).

It was unclear whether Slosberg had used his machine on the Palm Beach ballots or not (and naturally, the local Democrat officials refused to press charges against him).

A caller on Liddy’s program suggested that maybe Irving was responsible for the 19,000 ballots that had the two votes for president. Thus, is it possible that Irving used his machine to punch out a vote for Gore on ballots marked for Bush or others to cause the double punches and thus disqualify the ballot? Of course, this would help Gore.

Black Ingenuity in Florida in 2000

The 2000 elections also offered a unique opportunity for Black Democrats to try to steal that election more easily than having to use Black preachers to bus in loads of Black voters to vote at several different precincts. The just discussed voting mess in Florida revealed that in heavily Democrat areas, a new twist has entered the arena to allow massive Black Democrat vote fraud by easier and more practical methods.

Palm Beach County, Florida has a huge number of Negroes who claimed (after the Bush victory on Nov 7, 2000) that their votes were not counted. It was unclear how they knew that their votes were not counted. But the gullible American public was mesmerized by the controlled media to accept that fact. So Jesse Jackson and the NAACP rushed into Palm Beach to stir up the fire.

Some four days after the voting, a whole box of uncounted votes was allegedly discovered in one of the Black churches. The Africans alleged that this box of ballots was not picked up by county election authorities for counting. Of course, the Blacks blamed the White officials (who were, in fact, Democrats) for the neglect.

However, something surfaced in the news reports which disclosed the ridiculous profile which the gullible, stupid, American voters have allowed themselves to get into in the past several years because of the pathetic sick approach that Americans have adopted in addressing any questions over race and Africans.

Per the news reports, some or all areas of Florida allowed county election officials to establish voting booths/precincts in Black churches in Black neighborhoods (this is where one of the alleged “lost” boxes of votes surfaced). By authorizing Blacks to vote at Black churches (under the supervision of Black officials), the door was opened for massive, new, vote fraud.

With control over the precincts/voting booths, there was no need for Black preachers to bus Blacks all over the county in order to vote at several different precincts. Things were enormously simplified. And as always, if White people complained over this new methodology of Black voter fraud, the controlled media could and would holler and scream about the complainants being racists and White supremacists.

The common reality of Black voter fraud should alert anyone with brains above the idiot state that there are inherent problems and fraud chances when Blacks gain political control at the governmental level. When Negroes are the people in charge of state/county election offices and/or when numbers of Negroes are employed in county election offices, the opportunities for fraud and incompetence grossly accelerate.

Please understand that this writer is not indicting 100% of all Blacks of being dishonest and crooked in US elections. No! All Blacks are not corrupt or incompetent. It’s just that a significant percentage and/or most of them are. In fact, there are reasons to believe that there are only a very few Negroes who are competent and/or honest. There aren’t many. But assuredly, there seems to be a few.

All Blacks are not automatically stupid, born illegitimate, on welfare or in jail. There are some around who are not (though most Black children are now being born illegitimately and most young Black males are either in jail or on parole).

Conversely, all WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) are not automatically honest and competent. Some of these people are also duds or crooks. But the numbers of WASP crooks/duds are much smaller, percentage-wise, in their population, as compared with Blacks, Amalekites, Hispanics and other peoples with heavy Edomite and/or Black genes (like Southern Europeans, Southern Asians, etc).

The Problem of Counting the Vote

Besides the outright purchase of Black and Hispanic votes, there were a couple of other issues on voting problems in 2000 which must also be acknowledged (although these occurrences did not necessarily link solely to Blacks and Hispanics, per se, since they were generally controlled and/or promoted by diabolical Amalekites).

Essentially, votes are no longer hand counted at all. Some use Votamatic tabulators. Others are counted and compiled by computers equipped with cellular telephony and two way modems and other electronic equipment (most of which today are designed and sold by one company-- “Elections Systems & Software, Inc”).

Theoretically, a machine would produce a more accurate and reliable count than a hand count. Hand counts can allow unintended arithmetic mistakes and especially open the door to outright fraud and corruption in juggling the results by polling authorities (either on individual ballots or overall results). The sharp fingernails of election officials can also do wonders on ballots with perforated chads!

Since Blacks and Amalekites are prone to acts of fraud and dishonesty, it is like letting the foxes into the henhouse when the ballots are turned over to them to control and count. Election officials and vote counters in many Democrat counties are Blacks or Amalekites, who are quite anxious to undertake fraudulent acts to elect a Democrat. This is much of the problem in Florida in the counties which chose to do hand counts.

Though one might make the case that Republicans can also steal elections, the problem is not so great with hand counts in Republican counties because most of the Republicans are WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants). WASPs are simply not as susceptible to outright mistakes, fraud and corruption, as are Blacks.

Of course, the Amalekites are the most evil of all because they are masters at deception. It’s not that there are many Amalekites in low level jobs charged with counting votes. But they often are the people in charge which gives them a definite advantage in fixing elections. So stealing an election is no big deal for an Amalekite.

Machine Count Problems

But there are also problems with machine counts. The Nov 12, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 1, 21) had a lead story by Christopher Bollyn on “Manufacturers Admit Voting Machines Unreliable” which said that the machine failure rates ranged from 16 to 28%. Tests of tens of thousands of ballots used in the state of Illinois from 1983 to 1987 indicated that the Illinois error rate was 20%.

One official said that at one time the rate was 28% and nobody cared. Rick Fulle, assistant director of Illinois voting systems, noted that “Nothing in (Illinois) law required that the count be accurate.” As Bollyn concluded, US voting officials have been unconcerned about the problem.

Howbeit, mistakes are only part of the machine problem. There are still other issues in the context of fraud. An earlier Sep 11, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 1, 10) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “Votescam Activists Want Honest Elections” which told of the work of a watchdog group which was concerned that US elections could be rigged by manipulating the computer counting process.

The well known Howard Phillips, of the US Constitution Party, has publicly charged that US vote fraud is not now the exception. Instead, it is the rule. A private corporation, Voter News Service of New York City, now compiles all of the vote results and reports them to the media. This company alone could elect the candidate of its choice. A possible Amalekite named Lee C. Shapiro heads this service.

Furthermore, much election fraud can involve the Mob. Albeit here, one must remember that the Mob is totally in the hands of powerful Amalekite Jew bankers/masters at the top levels (as outlined earlier).

As outlined in a former chapter, Texe Marrs reports that three private companies do all the maintenance and repairs on all of the voting machines used in the US and that the Mafia owns these three companies. Who knows when and how it can, does and will alter these machines in some way to produce illegal results. Since the Mafia is in the hands of the Amalekites, this reality paints a horrible picture for American elections.

One of the major players in the voting machine business is a company called Electronic Systems and Software, as cited above. This is a Omaha, Nebraska company which, strangely enough, is partly owned by US Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who attends many of the super-secret Bilderberg meetings (per Christopher Bollyn, in the Nov 18, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 1, 14-15).

This Omaha outfit claims that it counted 100 million ballots in the 2000 elections and 56% of the vote in the last four presidential elections (ibid, p. 1). Like Josef Stalin once said--He who votes decides nothing, while he who counts the ballots decides everything (my paraphrase!).

Moreover, as Bollyn reported in his November 12th article, the internal modems in (some) machines “enables anyone with a modern-equipped computer, from hackers and vendors to telephone company personnel and politicians, to access and alter the computer’s tally of the votes.” As “Spotlight” noted, this is “particularly troubling.” Palm Beach, Florida actually shut down its Internet site on Nov 10th for fear of hackers.

Former FBI Bureau Chief Ted Gunderson suggests that voter fraud has now become so common and routine in American elections that authorities are no longer interested in investigating it and the controlled media largely ignores it (video “Ted Gunderson Chronicles”). This is especially true if there is evidence of voter fraud involving Blacks.

Add this condition to the extensive use of voter machines, which can be deceptively manipulated from behind the scenes, and it is evident that major problems have developed in the honesty and integrity of American elections. Maybe this mess was just waiting to explode. And perhaps it has exploded, in the context of what happened in the 2000 elections.

Routine Democrat Vote Fraud

Per former comments herein, Democrats like Slick Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and others absolutely owe their elections to Democrat fraud. Heavy Democrat areas routinely have numbers of dead people voting in many elections anyway. It is said that some Democrat precincts hold out their vote results until last in some states so that they will know how many fraudulent votes they need to report.

This is evidently what happened in Illinois in 1960. The whole state went massively for Richard Nixon. The Chicago vote was held up until last. By the time that the Mob and the Democrat machine reported Chicago results, Kennedy won the state of Illinois with 9,000 votes to spare. Many Republicans argued that once the Chicago Mob knew how many Democrat votes they needed to win Illinois, they illegally produced them.

Chicago vote fraud has continued over the years and was apparently present in 2000. A story by Fred Lingel on “Head of Reform Group Decries Election Fraud” in the Mar 12, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 3) mentioned the findings of Christopher Bollyn (a “Spotlight” writer, quoted above). Lingel cited Bollyn’s efforts which suggested that the Cook County votes were manipulated again in 2000 (as has happened in prior years).

Bernalilo County, NM (where Albuquerque is located and the home of many Hispanics) is notorious for always being last in turning in their vote totals. Voter corruption there is acknowledged by many.

In the 2000 elections, Bush was slightly ahead in the NM state count (by a handful of votes) and another strong Hispanic county got into the act by claiming that they had mistakenly read the number 100 on a Gore tally sheet while the correct number was 600 for Gore. This alleged “correction” threw Gore ahead in the overall vote tally and gave the Gore-Lieberman team the electoral votes for the state of New Mexico.

Black and Hispanic officials, church leaders and people are notorious for committing voter fraud and getting away it (because the gullible Whites are afraid to speak out for fear of being called racists and White supremacists, as noted earlier).

The fall out of this reality is that once ballots have been turned over to Black, Hispanic or Amalekite Democrat officials, there is a high probability that the ballots will be fraudulently manipulated and altered in some manner to insure a Democrat victory in that county or area. This racial profile in New York combined in 2000 to insure that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats won there through massive fraud (as is now known).

The “American Sentinel”

The Apr 2001 “American Sentinel” (p. 8) had a report on the latest scheme of Blacks and Democrats to produce major acts of fraud to insure the election of people committed to the ideas, aspirations and goals of Colored Americans.

Specifically, the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus have been pushing the George W. Bush people to initiate action to federalize vote counting in America. Such an action would remove any semblance remaining of state authority over the US voting practices. Once this happens, guess what the Amalekite bankers/masters can do with the votes all over the United States?

Otherwise, there is a push in some states to require a valid form of identification from each prospective voter before allowing the person to vote. Quite naturally, the Blacks and Democrats are fundamentally opposed to such a scheme (which really would stop some voter fraud--as is commonly done by Blacks, Hispanics and Democrats).

This voter ID plan has drawn sharp fire from the African-American Coalition for Empowerment which charges that the plan is a “white plot” to create a hardship for the poor and people of color in the United States. As the “American Sentinel” concluded--Democrats are not afraid of voter fraud. Instead, they are protective of it.

The After-Effect in Florida

The fraud and corruption in Florida prompted the Miami-Dade County election authorities to hire poll monitors to watch out for voting irregularities in South Florida during the 2002 elections (Oct 25, 2002, “The Week,” p. 6). Such poll watchers usually only work in developing countries (yes, in Colored Third World states). This move shows how incredibly sick things are now in America.

Gore Learned From Slick

One of the grossly vile and evil acts of Clinton was to gather critical information upon his opponents and then use the resulting hostile information to intimidate, threaten and blackmail the people opposing him. Other presentations herein describe this Clinton MO and how successful Slick was able to blackmail and intimidate much of the US Congress during his impeachment and trial.

Now, evidence has surfaced that Gore picked upon this same practice, as discussed on the G. Gordon Liddy radio talk show on Nov 17, 2000, and in various news reports. Gore spent some time and effort at compiling dossiers of critical information on a number of the Bush electors in various states (if Al should have wanted their votes).

These people could be particularly susceptible to later coercion, blackmail; and if necessary, bribery (if desired by the powers that be). The option that some Bush electors could vote for Gore was discussed at some length in portions of the media during the days immediately following the Nov 7th election.

And interestingly, there were some telephone calls and feelers sent out to some of the electors, trying to determine if they indeed would abandon Bush for Gore. These telephone calls and contacts could have been especially revealing in the context of trying to determine who would be a good candidate to accept a bribe to change his/her vote. Of course, the blackmail threat was the strongest tool of all.

Reports have also surfaced claiming that the Gore people had been busy compiling a dossier on Katherine Harris, Republican Secretary of State of the state of Florida. She was a strong Bush supporter. Significantly, she declared that counties would have to abide by state law and turn their vote tallies in before the selected Democrat counties had time to finish their manual recounts.

Accordingly, the Gore camp launched an investigation into her life to gather as much bad information as possible (which could be later used to blackmail or intimidate her). Thereupon, the Democrat Florida Supreme Court twice stepped in and ruled that Harris would have to accept hand recounts by new court appointed deadlines.

The Role of Slick

This backdrop opens the door to the crisis which developed in the US in the 2000 elections. Did Slick somehow set this mess up so that he could stay on or regain power as US President? That question will be addressed in later chapters. For now, the point must be made that Clinton and/or his Amalekite bankers/masters/handlers very likely had a major role to play in what happened in the 2000 elections.

In mentioning this situation, this writer consistently could not believe that Slick Clinton was going to leave office in January 2001. This man is extremely dangerous. Even now, he seems to be planning and manipulating events to regain power at the UN or in the US if a new constitution can be enacted or with a Hillary presidency or vice-presidency (as was noted in the Prologue).

Politics and the Christian Right

The so-called “Moral Majority,” under the leadership of Jerry Falwell and some of the other big time Christian religious hypocrites, has had some pressure on the Republicans--particularly over the abortion question. Accordingly, presidential candidate Bush saw fit to try to reach out to some of the Christian leaders to try to solidify them as his supporters.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush spoke at Bob Jones University and put in an appearance at Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Assuredly, Bush had been trying to woo and court the Christian right for some time (just as other important Republican candidates have done the same thing in prior elections for the last 20 years).

The whole question has been virtually moot for decades now, as far as the Democrats are concerned. Under Amalekite Jew leadership and control, the Democrat party has become so incredibly vile, corrupt and evil (in its strong positions on promoting abortions, homosexuality, fornication and sexual permissiveness, drugs, murder and on and on) that they have largely abandoned the Christian right years ago.

Now, the Fluke

Despite this historic profile of the two parties, things seemed to have changed briefly in 2000 for some strange and unclear reason.

True, in 2000, George W. Bush made his anticipated pitch as a good Christian, seeking the votes of the other “good Christians.” Hence, early on in 2000, Bush went on record and stated that his favorite philosopher and most admired person in history was “Jesus Christ.” Soon, Bush said he was “born again.”

Something motivated Gore to also decide to go after the Christian votes. Though Gore has been a New Age, Gaia worshipper (of mother earth) for some years, all of a sudden, he, too, decided that he was a “born again” Christian.

The Boy Scouts at the Democrat Convention

At the Democrat convention, in August 2000, the Gore people actually brought a number of Eagle Scouts to the podium to present to the people in the vein that the Democrat party has found some measure of integrity, character, morals, honor and so forth (as historically associated with the Boy Scouts).

However, the Boy Scouts have historically refused to accept homosexual scout masters and turn the pedophile ideas of the faggots loose on a bunch of innocent, young boys. As outlined in former chapters on sodomy and sodomite Americans, the conflict that the Boy Scouts has had with the queers has been serious (as highlighted and commented upon earlier).

So, when the Gore people invited and presented some Eagle Scouts to the Democrat convention, the queer Democrats and their leftist colleagues (under the control of perverted Amalekite bankers/masters) massively booed the Boy Scouts off of the podium (Sep 4, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 2). The Democrat delegates carried signs which said that “We Support Gay Scouts.”

So while the New Age Gore had been trying to strike a new profile of being religious, his buddies in the immoral, dishonest and corrupt Democrat party were still up to their old tactics of immorality and depravity.

The Lieberman Choice, Revisited

As discussed earlier, Al Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. The faggot Lieberman is supposedly an Orthodox Jew and a man of religious character, morals and integrity. Perhaps Gore thought that some of these alleged good attributes would rub off on him and detract from his history of depravity and evil and particularly while a part of the Slick Clinton administration.

However, it does not take much of an examination of the man Lieberman to realize that he is as corrupt, evil and depraved as any other major politician (except perhaps for Slick Clinton who is the most corrupt and wicked of all). In any case, Lieberman has delivered by constantly talking about “God” and morality, as if he is as good as the Christians in the moral majority.

But even Lieberman’s constant talk about “God” and morality is really quite hypocritical, as far as the left wing, controlled media is concerned. The Amalekite bosses have worked for ages to get Americans to completely abandon such talk. And earlier, when Bush tried it, the media bombed him ferociously. Now, Lieberman came out and talked daily about “God.” But he is an Amalekite and can get away with it.

Interestingly, the Amalekite bankers/masters and their janissary allies returned to form when John Ashcroft appeared before the Senate for his confirmation hearings on being Attorney General (as noted elsewhere herein). The leftists did their best to nail him to the wall because of his religious convictions. Obviously, an Amalekite seeking votes (like Lieberman) could talk about religion and “God,” but not a sincere Christian.

Democrats Get Religion?

Jerry Falwell’s paper, the “National Liberty Journal” for September 2000, had a front page story on “The Democrats Get Religion” (p. 1, 3) by J. M. Smith--which assessed Gore’s turn to Christendom and his attempts to put on a Christian face of morality, honor and integrity (which is something that the typical Democrat has little or nothing of).

As Smith wrote, Gore’s extremist agenda on abortion, homosexuality, globalism and other issues would make it very difficult for him to attract conservative voters, despite the efforts of the (controlled--ed) media to present Lieberman as a moderate.

Among the other candidates, perhaps Phillips (of the Constitutional Party) and Buchanan (a fairly religious Catholic of the Reform Party) probably were the most moral of the crowd--and they had plenty of problems in the vein of their Christian religion.

The other Reform candidate, John Hegelin, was supposedly a Christian. But he was really in the world of Hinduism and the occult. John was a proponent of Transcendental Meditation which he said is now “mainstream” in America (“Newsweek,” Sep 4, 2000, p. 4).

Christians Will Support Them

What it boils down to is that the whole American political crowd was/is a bunch of hypocrites and frauds. Except for Buchanan and Phillips (who may have had a little character), the rest of them were as sorry as can be. While they talked and frothed at the mouth about being good Christians, it was hard to imagine that any Christian with any brains at all would support any individual in this group of deceitful crooks.

Yet, the truth is the American Christian population did generally vote for either Bush or Gore (just as they largely voted for Slick Clinton in 1992 and 1996). It looks like the Christians would have had enough perception to realize that they were being suckered by the major candidates with all of the talk about righteousness and being born again. But they never seemed to get it at all.

The truth is that all of the major candidates were as sorry as they could be (except for possibly Buchanan and Phillips, to some extent. But Buchanan and Phillips received very few votes at the polls).

Bearing Responsibility, Revisited

It looks like the Christian majority in America (who have historically been in a position to elect the American presidents, since George Washington in 1788) would eventually wake up and start voting for righteousness, character and integrity. But they don’t. They vote for the status quo under the guidance and leadership of very evil Amalekite bankers/masters (who have been calling the US election shots for years now).

With all these years that the Christian majority has been electing such sorry people, it looks like that the corrupt preachers (who really are the most guilty of all, as discussed herein) would tell their followers about their responsibilities when they vote for sin and sinners, but they don’t (as has been the Christian practice for many, long years).

Yes, the voters seem to carry moral responsibility when they elect an evil man to government leadership (as noted earlier). Why can’t Christians wake up and accept this responsibility. If the people they elect are corrupt and sorry (like President Slick Clinton), then the people who voted for them must share in the guilt and sin. Thus, the people who elect them seem responsible for their wickedness, murder and depravity.

This point should not be too complicated. But for some reason, Christian Americans never want to take any responsibility for the corrupt political leaders which they choose. They want to close their eyes and go on about their business, as if it is not their fault that America’s leaders are evil (though they voted for them and elected them). Why won’t Christians accept reasonability for their mistakes? But they won’t.

Chapter 364--YHWH’s Sovereignty in Government

The Early Monarchies

While theoretic democracies have prevailed in much of the Christian West nations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, this was not always the case in history in most of the world.

Actually, the present Western democracies are a fairly new phenomenon on the world scene (beyond ancient Greece; and of course, Rome, which was originally a republic before giving way to democratic pressures). Very early, in time, monarchies became the more prevalent forms of government, long before the world went crazy with the idea of democracy.

The bad features of a human, dictatorial monarchy almost need no explanation--since they are so patently obvious to anyone with a capacity to think and reason.

As this theme relates to the ancient nation of Yisrael, it is useful to remember that on entering Canaan land, Yisrael was a theocracy ruled by YHWH, Himself, using the priesthood and human judges--which He raised up as necessary to accomplish His purposes (as will be discussed below).

Over time, the carnal, unconverted people of Yisrael started clamoring for a human king to rule over them, as was common in the heathen nations of the world (I Sam 8:5-6, 19; 8:7).

On behalf of The SOVEREIGN, Shmuel told them of the great evils and troubles which would come upon them with an abandonment of the theocracy for a human king. He mentioned the exploitation, abuse and plunder of the people by a monarch and how they would pay excessive taxes and give up their own sons and daughters (I Sam 8:10-17). But the people wouldn’t listen!

So The HIGHEST gave them the precise type of king they wanted. He initially gave them Shaul, a tall, handsome, strong and powering young man with a lot of charisma and the typical qualities which humans/humanoids like in their leaders (I Sam 9:1-2). In other words, Shaul wasn’t much on truth, character, integrity, faith and worship of YHWH. But he was big on things carnal people appreciate (surely, he talked good).

Of course, the sorry Shaul did not make a good king (because, as noted in other comments herein, sun worship democracy was employed by the people in their choice and selection of him). With his death, YHWH intervened and made His Own choice of David and his seedline to rule over Yisrael when The ELOHIM ignored outward appearances and made His decision based upon David’s heart (I Sam 16:7, 12-13).

A Theocracy

Preceding Yisrael’s entrance into being a monarchy, as just mentioned, the nation functioned under a theocracy, whereby YHWH directly ruled the people (through the use of His appointed judges, priesthood; and of course, a system of elders, as will be addressed below). But as noted elsewhere herein, the people were rebellious, and they didn’t like YHWH’s direct rule. So they chose the above mentioned monarchy.

Other than the ancient theocracy in Yisrael, it would seem that truly no human government has existed in 3,000 years as a theocracy. Admittedly, there have been some attempts to formulate a theocracy in some Muslim nations by Islamic fundamentalists (as has happened in Iran and Afghanistan in recent years).

But as the Oct-Dec 2001 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 2) notes, these attempts at establishing an Islamic theocracy actually have not panned out because the nations have instead developed and formed into a government of despotism or an oligarchy. So the ideals of a theocracy have simply not been a part of man’s makeup.

The Elders

In Yisrael, in both her theocratic and monarchical days, Yisrael did have a system of elders who did much of the ruling--at least, on the local level. This just quoted “Hebrew Roots” article (ibid, p. 5), above, looked at this issue and suggested that the elders generally consisted of the heads of the tribe, family or clan units.

Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary” identifies the Hebrew word for elder as “zaken” or “zakenim” in the plural (Strong’s #2205). As “Hebrew Roots” notes, zaken means old, but it also carries the implication of “one having authority.” Thus, probably the elders in both civil and religious affairs were older men who carried some authority.

While “Roots” did not offer any conclusions on what older meant, it would appear that age 30 in the Book establishes the point of maturity for a man. And assuredly, the issue with an elder always was one of an older male Israelite. Women, nokri/nekar aliens and so forth were all out in terms of being elders (as established in former chapters).

“Hebrew Roots” did suggest that the body of elders themselves carried some authority of whom they would allow to sit in their councils as an elder.

Thus, perhaps senile and incompetent people (who would be known as such in the collective body of elders) were probably excluded (just as the collective US Senate and House of Representatives can refuse to seat anyone they choose because of questions of moral turpitude, competence, etc). Otherwise, the body of elders probably involved all of the older men, age 30 and above.

It appears that there were bodies of elders over the nation (Ex 3:16; Deut 29:10), over the tribes (Deut 31:28), and over individual cities and towns (Deut 19:11-12; Prov 31:23). And as noted in a prior chapter on understanding, there were elders over synagogues and over the Apostolic Assembly and its components (Acts 14:23; I Tim 5:1, 17; Titus 1:5).

Yes, there was even elders over Egypt and the Egyptian households (Gen 50:7-8). The presumption must be that older men were commonly banded together in bodies of elders probably in most all of the ancient societies. What a shame it has been that the presence and role of elders has totally disappeared in the modern Christian sun worship culture and society.

YHWH is Sovereign Even in Human Governments

Beyond the obvious in the various remarks made so far on the selection of human governments, there is still one more factor worthy of mention. This one paramount reality is that irrespective of what type, system or scheme of government that arises on planet earth (and particularly, in association with the nations of Yisrael), the fact is that it arises ultimately with the approval or allowance of The SOVEREIGN.

It may be that The SUPREME makes a choice to give the people what the people want (as He did with Shaul and irrespective of how bad, sorry and corrupt that ruler is). When the people are evil and desperately wicked (as they are today), perhaps The HIGHEST approves or allows their wicked choices of government.

Yes, Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar came to power with YAH’s authorization (to carry out His purposes for Yisrael, as the Book proves).

Slick Clinton is a classic illustration of this process. His elections and successes (which YHWH has certainly allowed) can be traced entirely to the wickedness, corruption and evil of the American voters who have chosen him. In truth, he reflects the morality, character, integrity and honesty of the American people, as pointed out in former comments.

NBC’s “Today” program of June 2, 1997, had a guest on who was promoting a national TV show on Slick Willy and his love of music and particularly the saxophone which he plays. The point was made that preceding presidents seemed to be fatherly or grandfatherly figures. The guest said that Bill is the “rock n’ roll president” and “he’s one of us.”

Yes, he’s a druggy and philander as well which truly does make him “one of us,” in terms of the modern American, sun worship society. It is because of this precise condition that judgment is waiting at the doorsteps for the collective US population. Americans have chosen and continue to support the wicked sodomite Clinton because he is one of them.

For His part, surely The HIGHEST would certainly not exhibit any choice of such a corrupt and sorry individual as the Slick Meister. But The SUPREME has allowed the American people to have their way in this just as He allowed the evil and diabolical king Tzidkiyahu to assume the throne of David in the early 6th century BCE.

Tzidkiyahu was the man needed to bring about the collapse, downfall and destruction of the House of Yehudah to the Babylonians under (YHWH’s servant) Nebuchadnezzar. Yehudah was evil and wicked. She needed punishment, correction and judgment which came while Tzidkiyahu was king.

YHWH’s Judgment On America

The exact same situation exists today with the United States. The people are evil and morally depraved. The nation is facing her judgment day. Slick Willy appears to be the man of the hour (if he can regain power) to oversee the end of the United States government and an intervention by YHWH to punish, chastise and correct the people here (or alternatively, Bush certainly could be in that role right now).

In Shmuel’s famous dissertation on what all would happen to the Israelites with their outright rejection of YHWH’s theocracy and government in order to have a human ruler, like the surrounding nations, the message concluded with a most fascinating little remark (I Sam 8:7-18).

As the Book reflects it, the people’s rejection of YHWH meant that they would suffer at the hands of their evil, human rulers. And during the time of the oppressive, wicked human rulers, the Israelites would cry out in prayer to YHWH. But in that day, The ELOHIM would not hear them (I Sam 8:18).

In preceding discussions on prayer, the point was made that YHWH will not even listen to or entertain the prayers of people continuing in sin. So it seems that wicked, evil, sinning people can just about count on being persecuted by their wicked, oppressive human governments (without any help or intervention from The ELOHIM).

And that’s about what has happened to morally depraved, evil and wicked Americans. Their progressively worse sins have given them perhaps the most dishonest, immoral and wicked politician of all time in the form of the Slick Meister. Surely, with America’s democratic choice of evil, YHWH’s righteous judgment will now descend on this nation.

This judgment will certainly (and Scripturally) come on the US in the form of an invading foreign army. The forces that come against this nation will be chosen peoples serving The HIGHEST in His purpose and justice for America and the American people. Obviously, the prayers of evil Americans will not be heard by YHWH in that day. He will turn His ear from Christian sun worshippers!

YHWH Always Approves or Allows

But whatever comes about, it comes about with The MOST HIGH’s decision to approve or allow it (even in the Scriptural use of the lot--Acts 1:26). Consequently, however selected or whatever the motivation, the reality is that it occurs with The ELOHIM’s ultimate allowance and/or approval.

Actually, this true condition on earth then allows the presence of a host of Scriptures which affirm the fact that human governments (good and bad) are established or exist with YHWH’s approval or allowance in order to fulfill His ultimate purpose for the creation (Jer 18:1-9; Dan 2:20-21; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21, 26; Amos 3:6; Jo 19:11; Acts 4:28; Rom 13:1-7; Col 1:16).

Role for the Believer

This background, involving YHWH’s ultimate approval and oversight of human governments, gives rise next to the question of how persons among the election should react to such governments.

On this, the Book “seems” to enjoin believers to submit to the established human governments, however bad and sorry that the government rule and rulers might be (Eccl 10:20; Matt 17:24-27; 22:21; I Tim 2:1-3; Titus 3:1-2; I Pet 2:13-14). Carnal (not spiritual) peoples oppose governments (II Pet 2:10-12).

The Pharisees of Second Temple Judaism seem to have had some interesting ideas on human government. “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v.13, p. 364) notes that in contrast to the Zealots, the Pharisees (Hillel Pharisees?) “were willing to submit to foreign domination--so long as it did not interfere with their inner way of life--rather than support an impious government of their own.”

This Pharisee position deserves some analysis. While it is obvious that they “submitted” and obeyed the human governments in authority, Judaica makes the point that they would not and did not “support” the impious governments of their own. Submission and obedience does not imply or suggest a requirement to “support” and be an advocacy for that which is evil.

Becoming Kodesh

In short, the followers of YHWH YESHUA must become kodesh (separate, segregated and set apart) from this worldly system of corruption and evil (Jo 17:15-16; II Cor 6:17; Eph 2:19; I Pet 1:4) and perhaps emulate the Hillel Pharisees in their separation.

In the state of kodesh, it would seem that elect persons should take no part in sun worship elections or the choosing of sun worship governors, nor offer any advocacy or support for such sun worship practices--since there is no authority for sun worship governments in the Word and since the choices of their establishment will ultimately be with YHWH’s allowance to serve His purpose, however good or bad that they may be.

America, in both 1992 and 1996, went to the polls and made her selection of evil in the form of Slick Clinton. Manifestly, Clinton would never have been YHWH’s choice for anything. He simply is too depraved and wicked. But The MOST HIGH allowed his election because the people themselves are wretched and evil. Clinton is a reflection of the American people. So he was elected and YAH allowed it.

Justice Will Come

But in time, YHWH will impose justice for this hypocrisy. There is no question about it. Judgment is waiting in the wings for American politicians, crooked bureaucrats and officials and by all means, the collective American people who have sat back and allowed this wickedness and evil to persist--even while they had the ability to change it. Ultimately, it is the people’s fault in this democracy that they have engineered.

Chapter 365--Reacting to Sun Worship Government

Some Considerations

In mentioning the need for a believer to be submissive to human government (mentioned in the prior chapters), there are a few other considerations which would be relevant to consider and incorporate into that submission.

The main surfacing question concerns the matter of the legality or lawfulness of the acts of the government.

In the first place, Kefa and the other apostles stated it well when they declared (after they had disobeyed the order of the high priest and governing council to stop teaching about YESHUA) that they would obey The ELOHIM, rather than man (Acts 5:28-29). Obviously, the person of faith must and indeed should always obey The MOST HIGH first and human governments second.

But in the absence of a certain and precise command by YHWH which clearly conflicts with some human law or edict, what should the believer otherwise do when a human government imposes duties on its subjects which are either just immoral or perhaps illegal and in contravention of other laws?

The US

For example, under the United States Constitution, there is a bill of rights (which is the only thing now in existence saving the American people from absolute tyranny) that is very positive and certain. However, the established political leaders regularly and frequently seem intent on abridging or interfering in those “rights” to some extent.

One sees this particularly in the matter of guns and firearms which are unquestionably addressed in the second amendment that says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yet, the Washington politicians and courts have assumed the prerogative to establish all kinds of laws and rules which clearly do “infringe” upon this basic right. Some 20,000 gun restriction laws (infringements) are now on the books.

Once these infringements are in place, the correct legal remedy is to question them in court. But this costs huge sums of money which the little people simply do not have. And even if these issues do go to court, the liberal courts typically ignore the Constitution and choose to uphold the illegal laws or write “new” laws by judicial interpretation.

Should these “unconstitutional” and “illegal” laws be obeyed or disobeyed? Assuredly, this is a most difficult question which is not easy to answer (it will be assessed in the following remarks and succeeding chapters).

But whatever path one chooses, he/she will be held accountable to the state and face the penalties which the state has imposed for violation of its rules (whether legal or not).

Questions of Law Morality

Next, there is the question about the morality of a given man-made law. For years, many state governments had laws imposing racial segregation between Whites and Blacks in much of society. Liberals, who like to impose unjust laws on others, looked upon these segregation laws as being immoral and therefore laws to be violated and ignored in rebellious sit-ins and demonstrations.

Strangely enough, national religious and political leaders hypocritically looked the other way and ignored such law violations for many years. This situation was ultimately settled by the US courts when they (illegally) began writing and making laws to overturn the status quo through judicial interpretation.

A more recent example surfaced in early 1997 when the American Civil Liberties Union discovered that Judge Roy Moore of Etowah County, Alabama (Gadsden) routinely opened court with a prayer and had a copy of the Ten Commandments on a display plaque. The ACLU people filed an ethics complaint and a court case in Circuit Court arguing that Moore’s actions were against US law.

The Circuit Court Judge Price ordered the prayers stopped and the display plague removed. For this action, the ruling American liberals, quite naturally, were elated and cheered Price on for his stand against the Decalogue. Soon, they awarded him the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

Later, at a prayer breakfast in early February 1997, Alabama Governor Fob James said that no federal or state judge would be allowed to tear down the plaque of the Ten Commandments as long as he could resist with the Alabama State Police and National Guard (per Patrick Buchanan in the Feb 12, 1997, “Washington Times”).

Perhaps the moral aspects of Price’s decision are behind the Governor’s defiance of this court order just as the civil rights advocates used morality as the excuse to violate American segregation laws at will in the 1950s and 1960s, when the push was on for (sun worship) racial integration. The federal government routinely encouraged and supported civil disobedience by the civil rights people back then.

In other words, if you think a particular law is immoral, you then have a legal right to disobey it as the civil rights advocates have done. But strangely enough, this thinking does not extend to conservatives, right wingers or politically incorrect people in general. Since their thinking is unpopular with the ruling liberals, their (so-called) illegal acts are not to be tolerated or even allowed a challenge in court.

Hence, the people who own certain guns or have chosen to blow up abortion clinics on moral grounds have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law by Washington. Is there a double standard here (hypocrisy)? Also, would the obedience of these abortion and segregation laws have caused the disobedience of YAH’s laws?

Jay Merrill’s Trial

In the March 7-20, 1997, “Trade N’ Save” paper (p 4), an article by Jay Merrill on “I Will Accept No King but Yahshua” addressed the issue of the domination of illegal or immoral human laws. Merrill was one of the three people (of the Phinehas Priesthood) tried and convicted for bombing an abortion clinic, the local (evil) Spokane, WA newspaper and robbing a couple of banks.

On being arrested, the US authorities decided that they wanted Merrill and the others to give them hand writing samples and certain photographs (obviously, they wanted these things to help them in their prosecution, although such acts would seem to be in conflict with the 5th amendment of the Constitution on prohibiting the need for self incrimination).

Merrill and the others refused. So the court ordered their compliance by force. They were forcibly bound and pulled out of their cells in an effort to get the photographs and to try to make them produce handwriting samples.

It seems that the Spokane County jailer came to Merrill (a sincere, religious man) and the others and told them that as Christians they were duty bound to immediately obey whatever the authorities demanded in view of Romans 13 and Shaul’s comments which might make a person suppose that all believers are automatically obligated to do whatever the government demands.

Just Authority

In a study of the Word on submission to government officials (when they order people around), Merrill quoted Romans 6:16; 13:1-7; I Cor 7:23; Matt 21:23-27 and other texts he found. He said that the English word power in Romans 13 comes from the Greek “exousia” which refers to power being derived from a “just” government operating in accordance with the laws of YHWH.

Young’s “Analytical Concordance” (p. 765) says that exousia means a “privilege, authority.” In a Prophecy Club home video on “Cheque Mate: The Game of Princes,” Jeff Baker echoes Merrill’s findings by defining exousia as “power derived from just authority.”

In his video on the “American Holocaust,” analyst David Wegener also took note of Romans 13. Wegener wisely focused upon Romans 13:3 and pointed out the importance of rulers being a terror to works of evil and not a terror to works of good. Thus, Wegener says that believers are to be in subjection to rulers who are a terror to works of evil and not a terror to works of good.

In relation to Wegener’s findings, it is clear that the George H. W. Bush, Bill “Slick” Clinton and George W. Bush administrations were not terrors to works of evil; but instead, they were/are terrors to works of good.

Therefore, per Wegener’s view, there is no Scriptural demand for believers to be in subjection to such workers of evil (in plain opposition to works of good).

The Essence

The point of this is that Romans 13 is certainly not placing believers under an obligation to obey illegal governments or governments which are not exercising their power in accordance with YHWH laws for man (in works of good).

Thus, if a government dictated that people set the first day of the week apart for rest and worship and that people could not work on that day (as happened in the Roman Empire in 321 CE, when Constantine imposed sun worship on the population by force, and later in the various Sunday Blue laws), persons obeying the Decalogue (Ex 20:9, which requires work on that day) would be forced into disobedience of the unjust civil law.

Suppose that a government requires people to perform secular work on the Seventh day Sabbath, in defiance of YHWH’s law at Exodus 20:9-11 (which did happen in the old Roman Empire, as a result of the Catholic Church Council at Laodicea in c364 CE [or perhaps 336 CE], as discussed before). Certainty, no believer is under any moral obligation to accept such authority. In fact, a believer is bound to disobey such a law.

Jay Merrill concluded that “until a government officer is working within the laws of Yahweh, and not the commandments of men, he is not an authority to be recognized... When we are placed in situations outside the Word of Yahweh, the...examples (cited from Scripture) show us that we are not bound to obey.”

Of course, Merrill’s comments were being made in the context of himself being a prisoner in jail and the question of how much obedience was required when the authorities issued orders to him while in custody. Should he have automatically done every thing that they told him to do?

Otherwise, his points could have some possible relevance in any number of other situations involving a “Big Brother” government and its many dictatorial commands over the general public.

Although not addressed by Merrill, there could also be a question over Exodus 22:28 here, as discussed earlier, in the vein of prohibiting the placing of a curse upon secular and religious leaders. As outlined earlier, there can be a issue here of whether the public official (being cursed or condemned) had acted in his color of office and for the people, in accordance with the Torah (Exodus, “The Pentateuch,” p. 382).

Other Examples

This same reasoning by Merrill would apply to the situation with David Koresh and his holdout against Big Brother who ordered Koresh and the others to surrender when a much publicized stalemate developed after an initial ATF attack upon the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas (to be discussed in a later chapter). Were the Davidians automatically bound to surrender simply because Big Brother commanded it?

A man named Rick Strawcutter is a pastor of a Christian Church in Adrian, Michigan. In 1996, he produced a video for the “Christian Underground Hotline” on “How Any Idiot Can Beat a Radar Speeding Ticket.” Strawcutter appears to be an advocate of the Common Law teachings now on-going in a large segment of the right-wing, Christian Patriot movement.

Rick believes that free men have an inalienable right to move or exercise mobility upon the public roadways without interference from the state. Well, as many people know, Big Brother has progressively moved to the point of requiring a license before a person can operate a motor vehicle on the public roads.

The license becomes a grant of permission from the state, as if the driver does not automatically have this freedom. Hence, it must be granted by the state. Therefore, the ability to use the public roadways for driving has become a privilege which the state can grant certain persons who march to the right tune. The ability to drive on the public roadways becomes--not a right--but a privilege.

This option has been previously discussed in the context that the state probably should grant a certificate of qualifications to drivers. But the license clearly is in contradistinction to the ideas of freedom and inalienable rights.

In any case, the Adrian man does not believe that the state’s regulations and highway traffic laws are legal and right from the perspective of a free man. Thus, his video appears to have been prepared on the premise that free men are not duty bound to obey the illegal and unjust highway laws.

In communicating this fact, Strawcutter does advocate that drivers using the public highways exercise care and reasonability. Is Strawcutter right?

A few years ago, a Baptist preacher named Everett Sileven refused to get a license from the state of Nebraska to operate a church school at his Louisville Baptist Church. He also refused to hire Nebraska’s certified teachers. Naturally, Big Brother’s officials came down on him with the full force of law. They raided his church and hauled him off to jail for 150 days. Was Sileven bound to obey?

Should Righteous Indignation Surface?

The Scriptures appear to communicate several situations which suggest the emergence of some righteous indignation in the hearts and minds of certain people of faith in history whenever they observed and witnessed great evil and wickedness in secular society.

The indignation and concern of these persons turned into such passion and zeal that they seemingly took the law into their own hands (like in the case of a vigilante).

In the first instance, the people of Yisrael began to commit open fornication with the daughters of Moab (and evidently one or more women of Midian) and attach themselves to the (sun god) Baal Peor at Shittim during the Exodus. This angered YHWH. So Moshe called the judges of Yisrael together to discuss YHWH’s judgment to kill the Israelites involved in this wickedness (Num 25:1-5).

Seeing the situation and the foot dragging by the authorities, Phinehas, a grandson of Aaron, rose up and personally slew one of the obvious couples engaged publicly in this illegal sex--and evidently, about the same time that YAH began to act and kill 24,000 other Israelites (Num 25:6-11).

In the second instance, Eliyahu the prophet called 850 (Sunday and Easter) preachers up to Mount Carmel for a contest in front of the wicked King Achav. After The SUPREME demonstrated His powers, Eliyahu raised up and righteously slew at least the 450 sun worship preachers and perhaps the other 400 Easter preachers as well (I Kg 18:1-40).

The third situation came about in Second Temple days when the wicked King Antiochus Epiphanies desecrated the Temple and tried to impose Grecian sun worship on the remnant of Yehudah by “force,” in about 168 BCE.

After great persecution and trouble for the righteous persons rejecting this sun worship, one priest named Mattathias and his sons (principally Judas) raised up and began a revolution for religious freedom and to restore true worship (I Maccabees 2:1-3:2).

A fourth example happened perhaps some three times in the first century CE when YESHUA entered the Temple and drove out the dishonest bankers and money changers (Matt 21:12-13; Mk 11:12-17; Lu 19:45-46; Jo 2:13-17).

These incidents have been elaborated upon in preceding chapters in this work and need no further comment now.

Religious Martyrs

Beyond the several illustrations, outlined above, of people who actively opposed the prevailing state/system with righteous zeal, focus can also be directed to a number of religious martyrs and potential martyrs who disobeyed the state in some instances; although they did not seem to actively oppose the state otherwise, for example--Daniel, Shadrakh, Meishakh and Avednego (Dan 3:12; 6:10).

Though their examples are not necessarily recorded in the Scriptures, mention might also be directed at the huge number of Protestants, who historically dared to oppose the Roman Catholic states for many centuries (when Rome ruled the world with an iron hand). Many of these people violated numerous secular and religious laws in their quest for religious freedom.

The Roman Catholic authorities responded with the Catholic Inquisition and came down on these dissidents with their full power and force of law. Millions were persecuted, tried, tortured and slaughtered (typically, by being burned alive at the stake) simply over religious conscience. Did they act righteously in defying the state?

Modern Manifestations Surface

These several situations from the history of people who raised themselves up to go against the state have been a motivational force to affect a number of conscientious persons here in America in the age end.

Probably, the individuals most susceptible to this Scriptural influence has been people in the so-called Patriots’ movement and this typically would include the religious Christian Identity people who are often also patriots.

In short, well meaning people become indignant and angry over the great sin and wickedness in modern America; and being unable to do anything about it at the polls, their zealousness and passion inflames them to “take the law” into their own hands to try to right the evident wrongs. So some of these people decide that they should blow up queer bars and abortion clinics and take other positive actions.

It seems that this was the environment which has given rise to the so-called free (freed) men of Montana, the Phinehas Priesthood operating in North Idaho and Washington state (involving Jay Merrill, as mentioned above), Eric Rudolph (to be later described), and “possibly” even to some of the people behind the Oklahoma City bombing of a few years ago, also to be discussed later (after all, the government did nothing about Waco. So maybe, some of the OC bombers thought that their actions represented justice).

This matter of an oppressive government will be taken up in later chapters. But for now, the question arises, should people with concern over the great evil and wickedness present rise up and do things on their own to try to correct the problem and promote justice? Or alternatively, should people sit back and do nothing--thus allowing the evil to continue with no opposition?

The Change in Attitudes

In early America, there is little doubt but that people (collectively) in society would act to protect society if and when government failed to do so. Hence, if someone opened up a whorehouse or a porno parlor in most towns or if some open fags were to move into some places, the collective people would have run all of them out of town.

But times have changed. Most Americans today are so mesmerized by the liberal media that they will do nothing about anything. On the contrary, if modern Americans can’t have their pornography outlets, many of them would rise up in anger and violence to demand that something be done!

The “Washington Times” (p. 17) of Jul 19-25, 1999, had a story by David Germain on “Small video stores rely on pornography to stay in business.” This report specifically focused upon X-rated films and their popularity in America. Small video stores have increased the shelf space for these dirty films because they are very popular--accounting for around 40-80% of the small video store rentals.

Besides these X rated movies, the R classification is also typically vulgar and dirty with raw sex scenes. These R rated films are not only all over America in video stores, but they are regularly shown on TV. The public loves them!

Many people go out of their way in order to obtain and watch these dirty movies or read similar dirty books (in terms of history, this writer must confess these sins as well, i am ashamed to say).

If a local community tried to outlaw this raw pornographic material, there would be an immediate cry from the public demanding that this stuff be made available publicly and without restraint.

And if by some fluke, a vigilante group tried to forcibly remove this wickedness, the loving, majority public would rise up in hate and opposition to attack and perhaps murder the vigilantes who would dare try to close down their beloved, porno parlors. People attacking or opposing queers will now have the full forces of the federal government and the controlled media down upon them--with hate and vengeance.

Should Big Brother Be Opposed?

However, based upon the several examples cited, is there any Scriptural authority for modern political activists to oppose the oppressive, evil, sun worship state? And the answer seems to be “possibly” no.

In the first place, Eliyahu and YESHUA took their actions based upon formal commissions and grants of authority for them to act (this was discussed in a prior chapter).

While YESHUA did act against the fat cat bankers operating at the Temple (as was discussed in prior comments), He assuredly never acted against the secular state-rule of the Romans which was oppressive and filled with evil from time to time. Proof of this condition surfaced when Pilate acknowledged that he could find no fault in Him--obviously, from the standpoint of Roman law (Jo 19:4-6).

The Apostle Shaul received credit for doing and saying a lot of things in his ministry. But the truth is that he never advocated rebellion toward established secular authority, however good or bad it was. As outlined beforehand, Shaul always obeyed YHWH’s laws and Jewish customs, as well as not transgressing against the laws of Caesar (Acts 25:7-11).

In the case of Phinehas, he acted in the theocracy after YHWH had made His will known to Moshe and the judges and while they were dragging their feet and not taking immediate action to correct the wickedness.

On this, Dan Gayman of the Church of Israel (“Do All Races Share in Salvation?,” p. 171-172) teaches that Phinehas was steward over the sanctuary and that his action was directed against Zimri (a chief man of the tribe of Shimon) who had actually brought a woman of Midian (Cozbi, a daughter of one of the chiefs of Midian) into the sanctuary to defile it.

As Phinehas was responsible for the sanctuary, he acted in the color of his office. Too, It seems clear that Phinehas knew YHWH’s will on this. And he chose to become an instrument to impose it. But again, this was in the theocracy where YHWH ruled.

The case involving the Maccabees is still different from the others. Whereas the other three situations did not seem to impede upon personal religious freedoms, the actions of Antiochus clearly did. He was an evil, Beast dictator, who was forcing sun worship on a collective people who were opposed to it.

So the Maccabees acted with the will of the collective people. In effect, without acting, the Maccabees and all of their colleagues interested in religious truth were in the position of facing an imminent death because of their choices to refuse to engage in the false sun worship being imposed by the Greeks.

The Protestant martyrs in the 15th and 16th centuries were very similar to the Maccabees in some ways. Many of the Protestants were being subjected to laws--which the obedience of such would have caused them to have conscience problems. In short, they wanted religious freedom. And to have it, many had to die and suffer at the hands of Catholic authorities.

Some More Cases

The book of Acts makes mention of a couple of anti-government protest movements which came to nothing in the scheme of things. For instance, there was Theudas and his 400 followers, and then Judas the Galilean, both of whom created popular uprisings of rebellion against the government in the name of liberty (Acts 5:36-37).

Josephus mentions several of these anti-government motions and particularly Judas who seems to have been a tax protester, trying to instill revolt in the people (“Concordant Commentary on the New Testament,” p. 186).

Even the later Zealots were nationalistic, anti-government people who tried to promote rebellion against Rome. Certainly, the Zealots accomplished zero. Most of them died in vain--for nothing!

The point of these two illustrations from Acts 5:36-37 is that these anti-government movements apparently lacked support from The MOST HIGH. Since they were not sanctioned by The HIGHEST, they came to naught and accomplished nothing--beyond causing the death of many, well-meaning people who could have better served YHWH and truth in other, more productive ways.

Chapter 366--Supporting the Evil?

More From The Church of Israel (Schell City, MO)

The “Articles of Faith” of the Church of Israel (p. 31) offers this charge-- “All persons seeking religious affiliation with the CHURCH OF ISRAEL must obey civil authorities unless man-made laws require the breaking of a Scriptural command of God. If any Christian believes he is being required to violate a Scriptural command of God in following the requirements of a civil magistrate, these steps should be followed:

“Proper appeals and protest to proper civil authorities should be made; efforts should be made to change a particular law through God-ordained structures of government. The person should flee this persecution or suffer for not doing wrong. In no case can the individual take the law into his own hands, declare himself autonomous from the government, and resolve the problem outside lawful authority.”

This Church of Israel statement probably has some merit, although there are obvious questions about what can be or should be done. Above all else, the believer must pray about the matter and carefully meditate upon it in the context of the Torah before taking action. For certain, apathy, indifference and don’t care are not the solution for true believers.

Definitions

But one of the problems which a believer can sometimes face is a definition of a Scriptural command of The ELOHIM. In other words when should a believer resist or disobey?

Obviously, if Big Brother dictates work on the Sabbath day, then disobedience is clearly called for. And if the disobedient believer gets caught, he runs the risk of the penalties prescribed by the state (as happened in the old, Catholic, “Holy Roman Empire”).

Moreover, some things which are illegal, per YHWH’s Word, are legal per the state (like miscegenation and homosexuality) or some things which are Scripturally legal (thus, not sin) might be a criminal act, per Big Brother. Take the case of the previously discussed polygyny. Per the Word, it is legal. Per the state, it becomes bigamy and illegal.

Consequently, if a man does marry two women, he has not sinned. But he has become a bigamist and subject to being a criminal, per the state. Being a sinner and a human law criminal are two different things. They are not synonymous at all.

Question, does a man have to have two wives (legal per YHWH) in a state requiring monogamy? If a man chooses to obey the state with only one wife, has he violated YHWH’s law? Of course not. YHWH’s law doesn’t require a man to have two wives (in fact, some persons are specifically not to have multiple wives--Assembly leaders, etc).

If a man obeys the state and has only one wife, he certainly has not violated YAH’s law. One does not have to have two wives. Thus, the believer can obey both YHWH and the state in this instance in terms of marriage.

But if the man chooses to have a second wife, he clearly does not sin and transgress YAH’s law. He would, of course, become a criminal by man’s laws and subject to man-made punishments and penalties if he gets caught. That’s the risk of violating human laws in a sun worship culture.

The public schools are absolutely horrible and sinful. No true believer could ever want his children exposed to the sin and corruption in the pathetic public schools. Clearly, the solution is to take one’s children out of the public schools and make other arrangements (alternative education, home school, etc).

However, increasingly, Big Brother is not about to let parents have control of their children. The dictatorial state wants those children under her control. And she is moving towards making alternative education methods illegal. So, if a parent obeys the Word and takes his children out of the corrupt public school, the parent may become a criminal.

In this instance, the parent must disobey the evil state and its corrupt sorry schools. Righteousness demands it. Of course, the parent will face the penalties of Big Brother if caught. To avoid this criminal indictment, the thinking person most often will have to flee (which is what the Church of Israel is suggesting).

Take the Law Into Your Own Hands?

The final aspect of assessing the Scriptural position is the matter of how the believer is to react to the on-going great presence of sin and iniquity in the contemporary Christian sun worship culture and society. Of course, in the theocracy, one can justify “taking the law” into one’s own hands, as Phinehas did.

But no one lives in the theocracy at present on planet earth. Most Israelites live under the curse of Christian sun worship and Christian sun worship leaders. Assuredly, this evil situation is about to change with the return of YESHUA. But for now, one must deal with reality.

Perhaps the best illustration of this course of taking the law into one’s hand (in order to oppose outright evil) has surfaced in the contemporary society when some Christian people got fed up with the on-going infant murder at legal abortion clinics.

The formerly cited Jay Merrill and Eric Rudolph “might” be persons who fit into this category (if the charges against them were actually true). Many such concerned persons have wanted to go and blow up and destroy abortion clinics in the name of righteousness.

How About...?

The just completed discussion on the pathetic public schools is another area of concern. Should the believer take it upon himself to bomb and destroy the sinful public schools of the sun worship society? How about the homosexual fag bars that now openly operate all across America? Should believers rise up and bomb and destroy them?

If a person wishes to address environmental pollution and sin, then a focus could be directed at the vast majority of businesses and business buildings in America. Almost all of them are powerfully involved in sins directly or indirectly. Some businesses are just sinful and evil by nature--like banks and insurance companies.

How about the millions of sun worship churches and temples with all of their sun images (steeples, crosses, etc) across the United States. Should a true believer decide that he should go out and start destroying them, as Yechezkel prophesied of them for the age end when the House of Yisrael faces her judgment from YHWH (Ezek 6:3-6)?

In the theocracy, Sabbath breaking and idolatry were capital crimes demanding the death sentence (by stoning). Should true believers rise up and start stoning to death the vast multitudes of Christian sun worshippers, who transgress the Sabbaths and practice vain, open idolatry of the worst kind?

Any person wanting to take the law into his or her own hands is forced to make personal judgments of right and wrong (just like the Catholic Church did when she ruled the world with her sword and power over the state).

Furthermore, there is so much blatant sun worship and sinful wrong in the entire, complete, American, sun worship culture and society, it would be impossible to ever begin to deal with it. It is almost hypocritical to even address any one single aspect of it, while ignoring the rest.

The New Testament Situation

Perhaps one of the best written descriptions (remaining extant to our time) of an entire culture and civilization dedicated to deplorable sun worship would have to be the one mentioned in NT remarks, primarily outside Palestine. Much of the evil sun worship now seen in our contemporary society was visible and apparent throughout the early sun worshipping Roman Empire. Not much has changed in these last 2,000 years.

Taking the Scriptural examples, it is certain that Kefa, Yakov, Yohanan, Shaul, Bar-Nabba, Luke and on and on lived among such wicked sun worship practices and yet existed with a view of being “kodesh” (separated, set apart or segregated) from it, as much as was possible.

The only apparent exception to this rule was the situation with YESHUA and the bankers (who had moved their evil into the Temple, as previously noted).

These New Testament people never chose to blow up queer hangouts, infant murder clinics, or any of the multitudes of buildings and facilities used by the vast hordes of evil sun worshippers. They left them alone and merely separated themselves from them and their evil.

The place that one must come to on this line is that perhaps there is no legitimate basis for believers to be involved in overt, physical attacks on the existing sun worship facilities and people in a way contrary to secular law.

This situation with the NT people, the Maccabees and the Protestants gives rise to one of the key messages of the Word--that is that while believers should separate from human governments and be “apolitical” (with no involvement in politics at all), they must always be prepared to obey YHWH first in their own lives in any conflict with governmental decrees (Dan 3:12; 6:11; Acts 4:19) and personally suffer the consequences of their decision (Dan 3:14-23; 6:12-16; Acts 5:4-5).

The former Ernest L. Martin (now deceased), in his prophetic report on the “Place of Safety” (p. 8), elsewhere mentioned, offered this interpretation of Revelation 13:10-- “He that leads (the system) into captivity shall (himself) go into captivity. He that killeth with the sword (in trying to overcome the system), must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”

In other words, believers must exercise patience and faith in the coming days of great trial and tribulation.

Patriotism, Revisited

Some remarks on the previously cited patriotism must be shared before proceeding on in this study. While it would be difficult to generalize all of the likely motives present in the various people’s minds (who have raised up to oppose the wickedness in the modern sun worship state by overt, physical, active means), it does seem that the most prevailing attitude is one of patriotism and love of this country.

There are some very sincere people who love the US and the US as it once was (but no longer). They really believe that through activism they can reverse the downward spiral in this nation.

Of course, patriotic Americans effectively lost this fight in 1932 with the election of the Christian Socialist and Amalekite Franklin Roosevelt. With his election and the seizure of American political and educational systems by the leftists, the public has been slowly mesmerized to accept the resulting evil as being right and normal. Now, the Christian majority is in favor of it or passively accept it.

Some History

The patriots in the American revolution were criminals, per the British. But they had popular support for their fight with Britain. And they won. They were and are called patriotic heroes in American history books. To the British, they were traitors and rebels.

In terms of the American Civil War, one’s perspective is greatly influenced by the question of which side won. Therefore, the Southerners have been called rebels. The war came to be called the War of the Southern Rebellion.

If the South would have gained her independence, the people in the fight would have come to be called patriots and the war would be known as the war for Southern independence--at least, in the South. History’s perspective on war is always colored by which side won and where the historian owes his loyalty.

In 1940, German troops entered Paris during WWII. They were called liberators and the people of Paris poured out to welcome them. The women kissed the soldiers, and the Germans were cheered as loving, kind and wonderful. In 1944, the Americans entered Paris as liberators. Again, the people poured out to welcome and cheer them as wonderful, loving and kind. Women kissed the soldiers and so forth.

Since America and the West won WWII, the role of the Allies in conquering the various cities, towns and nations in Europe has been described as liberators by Western historians. But when the Germans were taking those same cites, towns and nations, the conquering Germans were called liberators. The point is that man is grossly hypocritical and cannot be relied upon to be consistent or to tell the truth.

Consequently, how one treats or looks at people involved in so-called patriotic movements, in opposition to the controlling government, depends upon how much public support there is for the movement; and of course, whether the movement eventually prevails and wins in the coming days.

The modern patriots lack popular support. As noted above, the modern American public has been so thoroughly mesmerized by the educational, entertainment and media systems--as run by the liberals, Socialists and humanists (under Amalekite leadership)--that they are largely incapable of even understanding what the problem is, much less in having an informed position one way or the other on it.

The Dilemma

One of the favorite things which the controlled media and government leaders like to cry and complain about is the need for public acceptance of racial integration, amalgamation, miscegenation and assimilation. This goal of the Amalekites (working for their father Satan) has long been established as one of the social gods, present here in the age end (as will be later discussed).

Any persons who will not accept this new social god (being pushed by the ruling Amalekites and their father Satan) are immediately branded as racists, bigots and White Supremacists. The controlled media hounds the gullible, mesmerized public with regular and frequent broadcasts about these evil people and their “hate and thought crimes.”

Yes, per the modern view being promoted by the Amalekite bankers/masters, under Satanic direction and supervision, it is a hate crime or hate thought to want to maintain racial separation (segregation) against this onslaught of the alleged good, love and benefits of racial integration and amalgamation (which is one of the current social gods approved and promoted by the state).

In the US and many Western, Christian countries, the Amalekites are in the driver’s seat in terms of governmental control and media domination. They own Hollywood and the entertainment and media corporations (AOL-Time Warner, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc, as will be proven in later chapters). They elect politicians and consequently later control the actions of the elected politicians (who are subservient to their owners).

They own and/or control most of the large multi-national corporations that provide employment to the general population (along with governments--which also are massive employers in the new Socialist states). Since both of these entities are largely controlled by Amalekite bankers/masters (at least, from behind the scenes), the corporations and governments march to the tune of the Satanic Amalekites.

Cheap Labor

These multi-national corporations are largely interested in one thing and one thing only--profits. Therefore, they are focused upon getting cheap labor. In the US, this means that many of these corporations involved in agriculture are constantly employing Mexican farm labor--either legally or illegally (since most Americans will not do this hard work, due to the availability of the huge US welfare system).

This propensity to hire foreign Colored workers in much of the Christian West has been going on for ages. In America, it started with the Irish and Chinese gangs brought in to work on the railroads. Some European countries now have massive Colored guest workers present (like Germany, to be shortly assessed).

Since the Amalekites and their father Satan are directing and managing this whole operation, huge numbers of foreign Colored peoples are pouring into the White Christian West in droves under all kinds of pretexts.

Because most of the voting people have turned their voting powers over to the Amalekite bankers/masters, the sold-out, controlled politicians do nothing to stop this inflow and assault upon the prevailing Western culture. So the Colored foreigners keep coming--for all kinds of reasons (to include legitimate employment with the multi-national corporations--which could care less about demographics or the future).

Some Righteous Indignation Surfaces

There has been a minority of people in most of these Western countries who have not been totally mesmerized and zombiized by the controlled media to accept the change in demographics and the absolute certain destruction of their racial kinsmen and people because of the flood of the Coloreds.

Sometimes, this indignation (and the inability to do anything about it politically at the voting polls--since too much of the population has been mesmerized by the controlled media and continues to vote for the politicians causing the problems) overflows and this minority of concerned people explode in anger and take their frustrations out on some of the Colored immigrants.

In the US, and in a few European countries (especially Britain and Germany), this indignation explodes and particularly so among some of the young people who cannot get jobs while the Colored aliens do have work. Sometimes, a few of the majority Whites attack and hurt or kill some of these foreigners. This only causes a massive media assault about so-called hate crimes and hate thoughts.

The Modern German Situation

In mid August 2000, some of the German skin-heads became concerned, angry and frustrated over what has been happening for ages now with an inflow of Colored Asians, Turks and Blacks into that nation as guest workers (as arranged, supervised and laid on by prostitute politicians and corporations that work for and serve Amalekite bankers/masters and Satan).

There are now some seven million Colored foreigners in Germany working as guest workers. There are also some four million unemployed Germans. So the frustrations and agony of some modern Germans bring up an economic feature.

When some of these Blacks come to Germany, with a little charisma and musical ability, they are able to suck up a lot of the young, White, German girls. This also makes the skin-heads mad.

Consequently, some of the right wing people have become so angry that they have attacked foreign immigrants from time to time. A number of cases surfaced in August 2000 which involved young German skinheads who injured or killed some Coloreds in Germany.

Naturally, the controlled media cried ou